In terms of the brain why is it that the vast majority of legendary artists are men?
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
suurrreee, keep telling yourself that! :)
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.
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.
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.
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.
I know. I'm just stupid.
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.
No, but hitting some history books or websites couldn't hurt. :tongue:
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".
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
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.
Aww, and does that hurt your feelings?
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
Thanks for telling me what you don't know retarded bastard.
Here is a study on artistic abilities
I loved this statement
I guess talent is not a requirement.
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)
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.
Do you know that or do you just believe?
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.
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.
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
temporal lobes (maybe)
(that's one thing I've heard some women complain about some men)
Separate names with a comma.