Brain of Male Artists: Why Are Most Legendary Artists Men?

[tommyburgey]

In terms of the brain why is it that the vast majority of legendary artists are men?

 

[Math Is Hard]

I suppose it has to do more with social and cultural factors than some innate biological reason. "Legendary" might have something to do with who gets to do the judging, as well as who gets an opportunity to be judged.

"This is so good, you would not know it was painted by a woman."
-- Hans Hoffmann about his student Lee Krasner, 1937

 

[RetardedBastard]

I suppose it has to do more with social and cultural factors than some innate biological reason.

suurrreee, keep telling yourself that! :)

 

[Evo]

Back through history, women weren't educated, they were not allowed to apprentice and they were not allowed to work as painters or sculptors, this was the world of men.

RetardedBastard, I suggest you start learning history. A woman would never be commisioned to do art. She would never have been given the opportunity.

 

[Moonbear]

This thread started out in Mind and Brain, but as should be clear from the replies, it's not really related so much to the brain as to the social environment and history, thus I've moved this over here.

 

[DaveC426913]

Yes, I think there are some innate assumptions in the initial post that need to be teased out and defined before getting to the bottom of this.

 

[RetardedBastard]

An artist can be exposed to painting solvents, resins, latex and the components that make up the paint itself including lead and zinc. I'm not sure about women in general, but expectant mothers (even in the past) might have been aware of some of the adverse health effects that such a hobby/profession might have on newborns and stayed away from it. Not that I have any studies to back me up.

 

[RetardedBastard]

RetardedBastard, I suggest you start learning history. A woman would never be commisioned to do art. She would never have been given the opportunity.

I know. I'm just stupid.

 

[tommyburgey]

I suppose it has to do more with social and cultural factors than some innate biological reason. "Legendary" might have something to do with who gets to do the judging, as well as who gets an opportunity to be judged.[/I]

Why is it so difficult to admit that males and females are biologically different, surely some female artists would have broken the mould if they were fantastic.
When a female has a biological advantage it isn't taboo (women have better social skills and can empathise with people's feelings better than men) but if a male has an advantage it is taboo.

 

[Evo]

I know. I'm just stupid.

No, but hitting some history books or websites couldn't hurt.

 

[DaveC426913]

I know. I'm just stupid.

Not at all.
You came with a question. You came away having learned something new.

If that's "stupid", I wouldn't want to be "smart".

 

[rewebster]

I think most 'normal' people think that they are 'artistic' in some way--verbally, visually, physically, etc. ---even an autistic can be artistic.

To me, it can be a developmental aspect of intelligence

 

[RetardedBastard]

Why is it so difficult to admit that males and females are biologically different, surely some female artists would have broken the mould if they were fantastic.

I don't think anyone here has said that the brains of the two sexes are biologically the same. The unknown is probably how little or how big the differences in our brains contributes to our ability to make great art.

When a female has a biological advantage it isn't taboo (women have better social skills and can empathise with people's feelings better than men) but if a male has an advantage it is taboo.

Aww, and does that hurt your feelings?

 

[rewebster]

hey--a woman could have been the first ('cave') artist---she was the one sittin' around the cave with nothing to look at on the walls

 

[tommyburgey]

The unknown is probably how little or how big the differences in our brains contributes to our ability to make great art.

Thanks for telling me what you don't know retarded bastard.

does that hurt your feelings?

yes...

 

[Evo]

Here is a study on artistic abilities

Conclusions show art as not having strong female or male dominance. Males' and females' drawing skills in particular show mixed percentages of success.

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPorta...Search_SearchType_0=eric_accno&accno=ED193314

And another

Researchers examined 112 subjects in the fall of 1987 using the Revised Eliot Spatial Dimensionality Test Battery. The data showed no significant sex differences between male and female students.

I loved this statement

Possibly, the often observed sex differences on spatial tests that seem to favor the male subjects do not so differentiate in professional art school. Experts have identified such spatial skills as components of general fluid cognitive abilities, perceptual field independence, and the ability to perceive three dimensional spatial relationships. All these elements would seem to be the key skills for success in art school.

I guess talent is not a requirement.

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPorta...Search_SearchType_0=eric_accno&accno=ED369681

 

[rewebster]

Well, let's take the Taliban, for example. They (the Taliban) are probably more closely related to the caveman than the chimpanzee-----do the Taliban allow their women to do 'art'?


Then, follow the caveman 'idea' down until the industrial revolution, which frees up women to be able to do 'more' --(remember that the Taliban haven't really embraced the industrial revolution yet)----and that's why (I think) more men than women are recognized (still, to some degree)

-----------------------
(After the first cave woman did her art on the wall the first time, the cave 'husband' probably told her to sit down, and that "he" could do it better)

 

[Math Is Hard]

Why is it so difficult to admit that males and females are biologically different, surely some female artists would have broken the mould if they were fantastic.

I never said that male and female brains weren't biologically different, only that I did not believe that biological differences were the answer to your question. Please do not put words in my mouth.

 

[tommyburgey]

I did not believe that biological differences were the answer to your question.

Do you know that or do you just believe?

 

[zoobyshoe]

In terms of the brain why is it that the vast majority of legendary artists are men?

Men have more legend-activated neurons in their frontal and temporal lobes.
...
In terms of artistic ability and sensibility I think women in all societies have always been way ahead of men in their grasp of line, form, rhythm, color, and texture: the omnipresent ingredients of art. They tend to express this constantly in their personal mode of dress, and how they decorate their environments, not to mention whatever more obvious crafts are traditionally the province of women in their particular culture. This translates to traditional Western forms of fine art with no problem. Women paint, draw, sculpt, etc just as well as men. As soon as men accepted the notion of women in Art famous woman artists started to appear: Georgia O'Keefe, Frida Kahlo, etc.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Do you know that or do you just believe?

Believe for the moment. There is always the chance that something will emerge that explains the phenomenon in terms of biology, but for now, we don't have any evidence for it. Besides, deciding that a painting is legendary is a very subjective judgment. I think that Camille Claudel is legendary. You may not. In the end, it's up to whoever edits and publishes the art history textbooks.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Men have more legend-activated neurons in their frontal and temporal lobes.

 

[tommyburgey]

There must be a better reason than society limiting women from becoming brilliant artists (composers aswell). Society didn't stop some farm girl from leading french armies to war in the 15th century why would it stop them paint or compose? I think everyone is too scared that a real expert opinion might hurt someones feelings (that's why it's been moved to social sciences).

 

[rewebster]

There must be a better reason than society limiting women from becoming brilliant artists (composers aswell). Society didn't stop some farm girl from leading french armies to war in the 15th century why would it stop them paint or compose? I think everyone is too scared that a real expert opinion might hurt someones feelings (that's why it's been moved to social sciences).

some think she was a little 'off' though

 

[rewebster]

temporal lobes (maybe)


(that's one thing I've heard some women complain about some men)

 

[zoobyshoe]

There must be a better reason than society limiting women from becoming brilliant artists (composers aswell). Society didn't stop some farm girl from leading french armies to war in the 15th century why would it stop them paint or compose? I think everyone is too scared that a real expert opinion might hurt someones feelings (that's why it's been moved to social sciences).

Go ahead and post the "real expert opinion". If it contains hard science, I'm sure they'll move this back to Mind and Brain for discussion.

 

[tommyburgey]

"Go ahead and post the "real expert opinion"."

I think you misunderstand...i'm asking the question.

 

[zoobyshoe]

"Go ahead and post the "real expert opinion"."

I think you misunderstand...i'm asking the question.

You think there are neurological experts reading Mind and Brain who can answer your quetion neurologically but who have been prevented from seeing it by its being moved?

 

[rewebster]

Where's the 'artistic' lobe of the brain?

 

[zoobyshoe]

Where's the 'artistic' lobe of the brain?

You're barking up the wrong lobe. It's the legendary lobe that's key here.

 

[rewebster]

You're barking up the wrong lobe. It's the legendary lobe that's key here.

(pre-1900)

Most Explorers, most writers, most theorists, most mountain climbers, most doctors, most business owners, etc.

(Is there a pattern forming?)

 

[Math Is Hard]

There must be a better reason than society limiting women from becoming brilliant artists (composers aswell). Society didn't stop some farm girl from leading french armies to war in the 15th century why would it stop them paint or compose?

I think you raise a great point here. Why did one young woman succeed in getting what she wanted where others failed? What made her the exception to the rule, and what kept others from following her example? I guess it could have been that unpleasant burning at the stake thing, but still..

I think everyone is too scared that a real expert opinion might hurt someones feelings (that's why it's been moved to social sciences).

Definitely doesn't hurt my feelings. I'm not an artist, just a simple cognitive science student. But the experts are having a hard time with this one, too. I think this research is important, but it's also very important to watch out for confounds. In fact, studies that involve gender differences as an independent variable are called "quasi-experiments", because when you divide subjects up by gender, they are no longer randomly assigned to conditions. Gender carries a lot of cultural baggage. For instance, if we do a study that finds girls prefer pink and boys prefer blue, should we attribute that to something innate, or to the possibility that they have had predominantly repeated exposures to one or the other color in their early years?

There have been some behavioral studies that show that boys do better on certain spatial rotation tasks, and there is evidence that girls have better communication between right and left brain hemispheres. These are both very good areas of study, because if we do find significant differences at this level over repeated testing, it will help tremendously in developing teaching methods for both girls and boys.

But when we get to the broad question of artistic talent and whether it is deemed legendary, it automatically calls into question who the judges are and who was deemed fit to be judged. We just can't ignore social/cultural factors.

 

[isabeau]

speaking as an actual artist - there are more women in art school now then men ( at least the one I went too)

it is a Field in history that has been closed to women. As was poetry. Women of the Victorian age were told to write in secret. Education wasn't as available and promotion of work as well.

there is still an underlying difference in treatment , but the gap is closer. Think of it now as how a auto sales person treats a man as compared to a woman. Both can buy the car but the treatment a lot of times is condescending to women. Same as getting a car repaired.

Why this exists ? I don't know since women brains are more artistically and verbally inclined where men are more prone to math yet both are similar in IQ.

http://today.uci.edu/news/release_detail.asp?key=1261"

 

[opus]

Here's a good answer I managed to google:

"The question "Why have there been no great women artists?" has led us to the conclusion, so far, that art is not a free, autonomous activity of a super-endowed individual, "Influenced" by previous artists, and, more vaguely and superficially, by "social forces," but rather, that the total situation of art making, both in terms of the development of the art maker and in the nature and quality of the work of art itself, occur in a social situation, are integral elements of this social structure, and are mediated and determined by specific and definable social institutions, be they art academies, systems of patronage, mythologies of the divine creator, artist as he-man or social outcast."

http://www.csupomona.edu/~plin/ews410/nogreatwomen.html

 

[falc39]

Two things - Testosterone and sexual transmutation.

Now granted, we are talking about reaching 'legendary' abilities in creativity. I'm thinking in the levels of Mozart and such. Those two are the scientific answers. The problem is researchers only see this from the scientific point of view, very rarely from a spiritual point of view, and even rarer from a mythological/archeoastrology point of view. Sorry, but I have to be brief here. Maybe I can explain it more later.

As for an artist today? There are no rules, and most art is not aligned with the heavens anymore. Which is why there is no Mozart, Bach, shakespeares, etc anymore.

 

[isabeau]

As for an artist today? There are no rules, and most art is not aligned with the heavens anymore. Which is why there is no Mozart, Bach, shakespeares, etc anymore.

we still have them. You don't see the Mozart's while you have them really . Which is why most Masters in the past have died broke and or homeless. Rembrandt , Mozart ...

Shakespeare wasn't 'Shakespeare ' then either. Popular yes but not considered a master.

As for female artists being deemed masters. I do believe our time is coming in a way. Only because it is the art that only matters now and sexism dropping away ( but not gone - men still manage to get more in grant money just as they still get paid more for the same job overall- actually I read a womans income for the same job has actually slipped under this president )

So in 50 to 100 years there will be more master women especially since more women are entering the Field now in the last 20 to 30 years.

although I must say not educating children in the arts as the old masters had done where you were lucky if you got to pick up a brush and paint drapery for your mentors after years of study has really taken away from what the masters of then were like compared to now.
Maybe I'm old fashioned but if you can't draw the figure you can't paint, or sculpt the figure and you have no business doing so . It's a foundation concept. I've seen too many 'painters' who couldn't draw to save their lives. And it shows.

 

[Economist]

I haven't read any other responses, so I apologize if someone has already said something similar.

I suppose it has to do more with social and cultural factors than some innate biological reason.

I totally agree with this.

"Legendary" might have something to do with who gets to do the judging, as well as who gets an opportunity to be judged.

I disagree with this.

Fields and jobs can be dominated by people of a certain race or gender, and that doesn't mean that racism, sexism, or oppression was involved. Look at the number of African Americans in the NBA and NFL. Or the number of African Americans in jazz, R&B, or rap. Or look at the number of women in nursing. Would you also suspect that men don't get into nursing because women are the ones judging? I wouldn't be suprised if people would have thrown out the exact same explanation for why women weren't that represented in colleges back in the day. However, now for every 100 college degree men get, women get 130 - 140. How does that explanation hold? Things changed and men became less oppressive? Or how do you explain the situation now? That women are the ones doing the oppressing? Did you also know that 1/10th of 1% of the worlds population is Jewish (that's 1/1000 for you people who hate math)? But did you know that Jewish people make up 29% of the Nobel Prize winners in Science and Literature?

People always jump to conclusions of discrimination, racism, sexism, etc, when fields are dominated by white men, but never say the same when fields are dominated by anyone else. I don't know why people would expect that most fields would be a racially and sexually sample that perfectly represents the population. When this doesn't happen, it doesn't mean foul play was involved, but rather it probably arises for other cultural, social, etc, reasons.

 

[isabeau]

People always jump to conclusions of discrimination, racism, sexism, etc, when fields are dominated by white men, but never say the same when fields are dominated by anyone else

I find the overall tone of your reply a bit racist. a white man hurting ? well it's time you weren't number one in line - time to get rid of the line - and that has yet to happen.

well white men have dominated for ages .. and aren't always taking it well at being unseated. Basketball was dominated by whites for ages until the early 70's. Maybe if whites were better playing it there would be more whites on the court. Same goes for hockey. It's mostly white ( darn near all of it) .

More men are becoming nurses. a traditionally female role because women were frowned at for wanting to be doctors .

and we are discussing art. and yes money and judges running hand in hand decide what is popular and what isn't. sadly. so it does disenfranchise those without. It's who knows who and who has the best connections. It's rarely about talent.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Fields and jobs can be dominated by people of a certain race or gender, and that doesn't mean that racism, sexism, or oppression was involved. Look at the number of African Americans in the NBA and NFL. Or the number of African Americans in jazz, R&B, or rap. Or look at the number of women in nursing. Would you also suspect that men don't get into nursing because women are the ones judging? I wouldn't be suprised if people would have thrown out the exact same explanation for why women weren't that represented in colleges back in the day. However, now for every 100 college degree men get, women get 130 - 140. How does that explanation hold? Things changed and men became less oppressive? Or how do you explain the situation now? That women are the ones doing the oppressing?

You seem to be talking about the way things are rather than the way things were. The way things were seems more relevant when we're talking about who emerged as a legendary artist in history.

Did you also know that 1/10th of 1% of the worlds population is Jewish (that's 1/1000 for you people who hate math)? But did you know that Jewish people make up 29% of the Nobel Prize winners in Science and Literature?

That's nice. But we're talking about art.

People always jump to conclusions of discrimination, racism, sexism, etc, when fields are dominated by white men, but never say the same when fields are dominated by anyone else. I don't know why people would expect that most fields would be a racially and sexually sample that perfectly represents the population. When this doesn't happen, it doesn't mean foul play was involved, but rather it probably arises for other cultural, social, etc, reasons.

People also sometimes jump to the conclusion that people are jumping to conclusions. You (and some of the others here) seem to be inferring a lot more than what I said in my posts. I'm not suggesting some kind of conspiracy here. My comment about "who gets to judge and who gets an opportunity to be judged" has everything to do with social, cultural, and historical factors.

 

[Economist]

I find the overall tone of your reply a bit racist.

Wow, big surprise here. I offended you by stating an opinion that wasn't even racist or offensive.

My point is that when people assume it's all about racism and sexism they often miss the real reason, and therefore they won't change it. In other words, their diagnosis of the problem is incorrect which is why their solutions probably won't work. How can racism and sexism explain female and minority dominated fields, jobs, etc?

a white man hurting? well it's time you weren't number one in line - time to get rid of the line - and that has yet to happen.

Who said anything about hurting or any kind of racial pride? You are implying and assuming that I actually care about how white men do in the aggregate. In all actuality, I am an individual, and care about how I do. I'm not worried, concerned, etc that whites don't do well in some fields, or that women get many more college degrees then men. Why should I let this bother me? I am an individual and I control my own destiny. So what women go to college more than men? I am going to college because I think it is important, and therefore I will reap the benefits of a college education regardless of the number of men and women who attend college along side me.

Maybe if whites were better playing it there would be more whites on the court.

Exactly! That is precisely my point, that it all comes down to talent. Talent is not randomly distributed racially or sexually today for many social and cultural reasons that don't have to do with racism or sexism. Race and sex are not the only social and cultural characteristics that influence people you know.

and we are discussing art. and yes money and judges running hand in hand decide what is popular and what isn't. sadly. so it does disenfranchise those without. It's who knows who and who has the best connections. It's rarely about talent.

I find this hard to believe as art is one of the things that seems to be largely about talent. I mean, how many musicians and artists come from poor backgrounds? Seems like a large number to me.

 

[Economist]

My comment about "who gets to judge and who gets an opportunity to be judged" has everything to do with social, cultural, and historical factors.

I can respect that opinion. My point is that it may have to do with these factors, but then again it may not have to do with these factors as much as you think. I mean, even in the early and mid 1900s when African Americans where very oppressed, you still saw a great number of African American musicians that dominated jazz, R&B, and some rock and roll. I would call that time period a pretty racist society, yet there were still many great African American musicians. Why is that? I would argue that consumers generally care about talent more than anything else, so they actually don't discriminate against women and minorities as much as many would think, especially in disciplines that are largely about talent (music, sports, etc).

Likewise, people sometimes forget that women probably didn't dominate these fields for largely economic reasons. Without modern technology, house work was a very hard career. Yes, I used the word career because it took somebody to do all these things at the home. You couldn't afford to have two people working during these times, and therefore one person had to stay at home. Why the woman? Perhaps for sexist reasons, but perhaps there is more to the story then we realize. In economic terms, maybe men had a comparative advantage in the private sector, and maybe women had a comparative advantage in the home sector. Don't underestimate inventions such as the washing machine, dish washer, etc, as they have had huge economic implications for our society. Essentially, they make house work much cheaper and easier, so now you can have both people working and/or going to school. As economists have pointed out, these factors definitely help explain why women get so many college degrees today, and why women are moving into many fields and careers that are or used to be male-dominated at very high rates, and why the wage gap between men and women is decreasing over time.

 

[falc39]

we still have them. You don't see the Mozart's while you have them really . Which is why most Masters in the past have died broke and or homeless. Rembrandt , Mozart ...

Shakespeare wasn't 'Shakespeare ' then either. Popular yes but not considered a master.

As for female artists being deemed masters. I do believe our time is coming in a way. Only because it is the art that only matters now and sexism dropping away ( but not gone - men still manage to get more in grant money just as they still get paid more for the same job overall- actually I read a womans income for the same job has actually slipped under this president )

So in 50 to 100 years there will be more master women especially since more women are entering the Field now in the last 20 to 30 years.

although I must say not educating children in the arts as the old masters had done where you were lucky if you got to pick up a brush and paint drapery for your mentors after years of study has really taken away from what the masters of then were like compared to now.
Maybe I'm old fashioned but if you can't draw the figure you can't paint, or sculpt the figure and you have no business doing so . It's a foundation concept. I've seen too many 'painters' who couldn't draw to save their lives. And it shows.

Shakespeare was one of the last of his kind. Reason being that he understood the myths of the ancients and used them in his own works. He like the people before him saw the world through the cosmological plane, which is a different sense of measurement-time. You have to understand that even though it is true that the Earth revolves around the sun which is proven by science, it is dull and lacking of inspiration. Back then, the Earth was considered the center of the universe, and the stars/heavens revolved around it. That is why in Shakespeare's stories when important events happened it usually was aligned with the stars. Everything was tied to the cosmological plane which gives his 'art' meaning.

How does this tie in with art? The reason being that art today is tied with nothing. It is commonly accepted that a painter can splash a bucket of paint on a canvass and call it art. It is commonly accepted that the tonality system of scales can be forsaken without anything worthwhile put in its place. Art thus not looking up to the heavens, results in it not being tied to nature and time. In the cosmological plane, everything was tied together. Art, religion, myth, it was all one. Since the enlightenment, all these have been split up and drifted farther away from each other, and as that happens, they all lose their universal truths.

 

[falc39]

I strongly suggest people look up the effects of testosterone and how sexual transmutation intertwine with art.

Reaching master/legendary levels of creativity cannot be achieved by talent alone. It is the drive that makes it possible. Often, many artistic geniuses were driven by members of the opposite sex. For example Beethoven. sexual transmutation being widely accepted as real, I am perplexed how people don't realize the effects of testosterone and how that relates to sexual transmutation, which thus relates to incredible achievements in other fields.

 

[LightbulbSun]

I find the overall tone of your reply a bit racist. a white man hurting ? well it's time you weren't number one in line - time to get rid of the line - and that has yet to happen.

This is rather cyclic.

 

[LightbulbSun]

You have to understand that even though it is true that the Earth revolves around the sun which is proven by science, it is dull and lacking of inspiration.

The Earth being the center of the universe is dull and lacking of inspiration.

 

[falc39]

The Earth being the center of the universe is dull and lacking of inspiration.

Yes, which is true from a scientific viewpoint, but not at all from the ancient mythological viewpoint. Again, science can only explain the physical aspects of things. The humanities and art itself is not just a physical manifestation.

 

[falc39]

Alright, I'm sorry most of my posting has been brief. Hopefully this post will be more explanatory.

I first have to address something. I want to address the myth that women were not allowed to progress in art. There is no glass ceiling here.

Women that belonged to the higher classes in society were often taught how to play instruments. They were definitely given the fundamentals to be great composers.

For instance, Mozart, one of if not the most recognized musical genius started teaching pupils when he was the age of twenty. Among his many pupils, here is a list of his important female ones:

Rosa Cannabich
Princesse de Guines
Countess de Cobenzl
Barbara von Ployer (perhaps his most famous female pupil)
Magdalene Pokorny
Countess Josepha Palffy
Countess Thiennes de Rumbeke
Countess Wilhelmina Thun
Aloysia Weber
Countess Anna Maria Zichy

Some of these pupils were performers, but there were also pupils who were strictly for composition. A translation from one of Mozart's letters shows Mozart explaining the frustration of teaching one of his female pupils. It's quite humorous (not in a sexist way).

...whose daughter is my pupil in composition,
plays the flute inimitably, and she the harp magnificently; she
has a great deal of talent and genius, and, above all, a
wonderful memory, for she plays all her pieces, about 200 in
number, by heart. She, however, doubts much whether she has any
genius for composition, especially as regards ideas or invention;
but her father (who, entre nous, is rather too infatuated about
her) declares that she certainly has ideas, and that she is only
diffident and has too little self-reliance. Well, we shall see.
If she acquires no thoughts or ideas, (for hitherto she really
has none whatever,) it is all in vain, for God knows I can't give
her any! It is not the father's intention to make her a great
composer. He says, "I don't wish her to write operas, or arias,
or concertos, or symphonies, but grand sonatas for her instrument
and for mine." I gave her to-day her fourth lesson on the rules
of composition and harmony, and am pretty well satisfied with
her. She made a very good bass for the first minuet, of which I
had given her the melody, and she has already begun to write in
three parts; she can do it, but she quickly tires, and I cannot
get her on, for it is impossible to proceed further as yet; it is
too soon, even if she really had genius, but, alas! there appears
to be none; all must be done by rule; she has no ideas, and none
seem likely to come, for I have tried her in every possible way.
Among other things it occurred to me to write out a very simple
minuet, and to see if she could not make a variation on it. Well,
that utterly failed. Now, thought I, she has not a notion how or
what to do first. So I began to vary the first bar, and told her
to continue in the same manner, and to keep to the idea. At
length this went tolerably well. When it was finished, I told her
she must try to originate something herself--only the treble of a
melody. So she thought it over for a whole quarter of an hour,
AND NOTHING CAME. Then I wrote four bars of a minuet, saying to
her, "See what an ass I am! I have begun a minuet, and can't even
complete the first part; be so very good as to finish it for me."
She declared this was impossible. At last, with great difficulty,
SOMETHING CAME, and I was only too glad that ANYTHING AT ALL
CAME. I told her then to complete the minuet--that is, the treble
only. The task I set her for the next lesson was to change my
four bars, and replace them by something of her own, and to find
out another beginning, even if it were the same harmony, only
changing the melody. I shall see to-morrow what she has done.

Regarding music, the only thing one needs to be able to compose is the ability to read and write music. Many women were given the chance to do just that. Furthermore, many treatises existed back then if one wanted to self-teach. When you reach the higher levels, you have to rely more on self-teaching anyway. There was no conspiracy to hold women down. I mean what would they do, make it so only men could buy sheet music? Back then, if you had talent, no matter if you were female or male, people will find you.

Genius knows no limitations.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Don't underestimate inventions such as the washing machine, dish washer, etc, as they have had huge economic implications for our society. Essentially, they make house work much cheaper and easier, so now you can have both people working and/or going to school.

Definitely agree. And I'll add The Pill to that list of inventions.

As economists have pointed out, these factors definitely help explain why women get so many college degrees today, and why women are moving into many fields and careers that are or used to be male-dominated at very high rates, and why the wage gap between men and women is decreasing over time.

I wish I could peek into the future 100 years from now and see how things have or have not changed.

 

[isabeau]

Shakespeare was one of the last of his kind. Reason being that he understood the myths of the ancients and used them in his own works. He like the people before him saw the world through the cosmological plane, which is a different sense of measurement-time. You have to understand that even though it is true that the Earth revolves around the sun which is proven by science, it is dull and lacking of inspiration. Back then, the Earth was considered the center of the universe, and the stars/heavens revolved around it. That is why in Shakespeare's stories when important events happened it usually was aligned with the stars. Everything was tied to the cosmological plane which gives his 'art' meaning.

Shakespeare was the John Grisham of his era. nothing cosmological about it.

How does this tie in with art? The reason being that art today is tied with nothing. It is commonly accepted that a painter can splash a bucket of paint on a canvass and call it art. It is commonly accepted that the tonality system of scales can be forsaken without anything worthwhile put in its place. Art thus not looking up to the heavens, results in it not being tied to nature and time. In the cosmological plane, everything was tied together. Art, religion, myth, it was all one. Since the enlightenment, all these have been split up and drifted farther away from each other, and as that happens, they all lose their universal truths.

unless your a mind reader you can't say todays art is tied to nothing. ( although the comment of the canvass spashed with a bucket of paint is a good example of the rich with no talent being famous based on opinion by those deemed good opinions - more of who you know not what you do or know).
And you must not view a lot of art . a lot of religious views as well as political make it into artwork. It's the ones being banned from being shown. the artist hasn't changed.

 

[isabeau]

Alright, I'm sorry most of my posting has been brief. Hopefully this post will be more explanatory.

I first have to address something. I want to address the myth that women were not allowed to progress in art. There is no glass ceiling here.

Women that belonged to the higher classes in society were often taught how to play instruments. They were definitely given the fundamentals to be great composers.

For instance, Mozart, one of if not the most recognized musical genius started teaching pupils when he was the age of twenty. Among his many pupils, here is a list of his important female ones:

Rosa Cannabich
Princesse de Guines
Countess de Cobenzl
Barbara von Ployer (perhaps his most famous female pupil)
Magdalene Pokorny
Countess Josepha Palffy
Countess Thiennes de Rumbeke
Countess Wilhelmina Thun
Aloysia Weber
Countess Anna Maria Zichy

Some of these pupils were performers, but there were also pupils who were strictly for composition. A translation from one of Mozart's letters shows Mozart explaining the frustration of teaching one of his female pupils. It's quite humorous (not in a sexist way).



Regarding music, the only thing one needs to be able to compose is the ability to read and write music. Many women were given the chance to do just that. Furthermore, many treatises existed back then if one wanted to self-teach. When you reach the higher levels, you have to rely more on self-teaching anyway. There was no conspiracy to hold women down. I mean what would they do, make it so only men could buy sheet music? Back then, if you had talent, no matter if you were female or male, people will find you.

Genius knows no limitations.

Mozart took on female students because he was broke a lot ot the time. Alot of his peers didn't. that aside.

women were taught music by and large only for entertaiment of the home not for concerts outside the home. it was part of the definition of 'feminine' .

as for writing for example , Fanny Burney , an author -

Miss Burney penned her most celebrated novel, Evelina.1 This book, published anonymously in 1778, was written secretively in disguised handwriting, as the young authoress feared that she would be censured for her aspirations to the writing profession.

http://www.umich.edu/~ece/student_projects/london_map/burney_home.html[/URL]