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

[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]

 

[rewebster]

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.

One reason for this is that Jewish society is a matriarchal one. Some Jewish mothers 'encourage' their children to do 'more' and make something of themselves.

Most of civilization through history has been a male dominated one, and it follows through and into the arts. Just look at the 'church' male dominance for example.

Women used (male or semi-anonymous) pseudonyms in the arts and literature often as to be more 'accepted' for their works.

 

[isabeau]

when it comes to painting and looking back only on the last 30 alone. The majority of famous artists have been white males.

here is the starting list from famous artists in the 20th century.

Edvard Munch(Expressionist)


Gustav Klimt


Joan Miro


Marc Chagall


Henri Matisse


Odilon Redon


Pablo Picasso


Paul Klee


Raoul Dufy


Salvador Dali


Wassily Kandinsky

their list has no females -

http://www.arthistory-famousartists-paintings.com/TwentiethCenturyPainting.html[/PLAIN]

 

[falc39]

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



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.

Wow, did you really mean that comparison? Time is the only judge of what will be considered 'great'. So you seem to be implying that in the future scholars will be dissecting and quoting like mad Mr. John Grisham's novels? Is that correct? The amount of wisdom found in Shakespeare's plays is almost uncanny compared to the fast food type of literature today.

When you are talking about Shakespeare, it has a lot do with archeo-astronomy. The cosmological plane ended with Plato. Writers like Shakespeare, Dante, and Virgil were much influenced by it.

The more I read, the more I realize that people are not aware of the major paradigm shifts in art compared to then and now. Art today is bound to nothing. There are no rules. Unfortunately, my mind reading abilities were not needed here. For example, my composition teacher a year ago told me to be more creative by doing whatever I want. Letting go of rules. He is not my composition teacher anymore. Any person who knows art knows that is not creativity. Painting is not my strong area (music is more in my comfort range), but it is even apparent in painting too. Giotto's painting, around the 1300's, established the basis of modern art. What was that? It was the idea that paintings were painted to "look exactly like the thing itself". And thus, the art of painting was bound to this simple idea. Over time, this idea changed, but the point is painting was always bound to something. Is art today bound by any principle? Not really, and if so, by weak ones (again the picture of someone splashing a bucket of paint on the canvass). That is why you will not see another painter reach legendary status (male or female) for a while. There is no conspiracy trying to hold some down. The problem is 'anything' has become acceptable, thus ironically killing the creative spirit and lowering the standards of a once great art.

This is also much much more apparent in music. In the baroque era, music was bound to point toward the heavens. The spiritual ties with composers like Bach were incredible. In this era, Masses, Motets, Chorales, Fugues, all considered sacred works were king. Music was bound to Religion. This is the example of a fragment of the super-science that existed in pre-history. When Religion, art, myth, science, etc were all one, with archeo-astronomy as the time measurement. It is very powerful. Bach's contemporaries, Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, shifted music but kept it bound to one thing. What was the one thing? The idea that music must imitate the human voice. The rest is history and opera became King. Anyone who has studied Mozart know his operas are by far his most important works. Chopin himself explained to his pupils that the most important aspect of playing his works was the flawless imitation of the human voice. Music thus being bound to the personal aspect of humanity in music, the human voice, led to the touching of many hearts. So now we come today and what is music bound to? Nothing, it is scattered everywhere. Anything goes basically. Creativity today is 'do whatever you want, regardless of the natural laws of rhythm, harmony, or nature itself'. Thus time, the only true judge, will not remember this era well.

Unfortunately that is why you will not see any legendary geniuses anymore (at least for a while). It is not because of gender, lack of talent, or a conspiracy. The fact that art stopped representing the universal truths is the reason why.

 

[falc39]

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' .

I believe you underestimate the fire and heart of the genius. Genius don't give up, never. If someone told Beethoven or any of them that they could not do what they did or it isn't their place in life, it would just get them to try even harder. Beethoven's father told him he was a useless musician, plus he went deaf later in life, did that stop him? That's why I don't buy this "they were being held down" mantra. Genius can't be held down. If you allow yourself to be held down, then you don't have what it takes to be one. The great ones also don't blame other people for their own shortcomings or under-achievements. As I have stated earlier, it has more to do with drive than pure talent.

I also find it odd that I have given the scientific answers to the OP's question. Yet this being a scientific forum, has no comment on it, and has largely ignored it.

 

[falc39]

when it comes to painting and looking back only on the last 30 alone. The majority of famous artists have been white males.

here is the starting list from famous artists in the 20th century.

Edvard Munch(Expressionist)


Gustav Klimt


Joan Miro


Marc Chagall


Henri Matisse


Odilon Redon


Pablo Picasso


Paul Klee


Raoul Dufy


Salvador Dali


Wassily Kandinsky

their list has no females -

http://www.arthistory-famousartists-paintings.com/TwentiethCenturyPainting.html

[/PLAIN]

Dont worry, these people will not be remembered in terms of legendary status (like Michaelangelo).

 

[isabeau]

ugh

Wow, did you really mean that comparison? Time is the only judge of what will be considered 'great'. So you seem to be implying that in the future scholars will be dissecting and quoting like mad Mr. John Grisham's novels? Is that correct? The amount of wisdom found in Shakespeare's plays is almost uncanny compared to the fast food type of literature today.

you don't get it .I'm not suggesting Grisham will become another Shakespeare. I am stating that Shakespeare while alive was concidered popular , not a master. Popular and master are not synonomous.

When you are talking about Shakespeare, it has a lot do with archeo-astronomy. The cosmological plane ended with Plato. Writers like Shakespeare, Dante, and Virgil were much influenced by it.

Incredibly, most of Shakespeare’s plays had never been published in anything except pamphlet form, and were simply extant as acting scripts stored at the Globe. Only the efforts of two of Shakespeare’s company, John Heminges and Henry Condell, preserved his 36 plays (minus Pericles, the thirty-seventh) [Barnet, xvii] in the First Folio. Heminges and Condell published the plays, they said, “only to keep the memory of so worthy a friend and fellow alive as was our Shakespeare” [Chute, 133]. Theater scripts were not regarded as literary works of art, but only the basis for the performance. Plays were a popular form of entertainment for all layers of society in Shakespeare’s time, which perhaps explains why Hamlet feels compelled to instruct the traveling Players on the fine points of acting, urging them not “to split the ears of the groundlings,” nor “speak no more than is set down for them.”
http://www.enotes.com/william-shakespeare/shakespeare-biography

The more I read, the more I realize that people are not aware of the major paradigm shifts in art compared to then and now. Art today is bound to nothing. There are no rules. Unfortunately, my mind reading abilities were not needed here. For example, my composition teacher a year ago told me to be more creative by doing whatever I want. Letting go of rules. He is not my composition teacher anymore. Any person who knows art knows that is not creativity. Painting is not my strong area (music is more in my comfort range), but it is even apparent in painting too. Giotto's painting, around the 1300's, established the basis of modern art. What was that? It was the idea that paintings were painted to "look exactly like the thing itself". And thus, the art of painting was bound to this simple idea. Over time, this idea changed, but the point is painting was always bound to something. Is art today bound by any principle? Not really, and if so, by weak ones (again the picture of someone splashing a bucket of paint on the canvass). That is why you will not see another painter reach legendary status (male or female) for a while. There is no conspiracy trying to hold some down. The problem is 'anything' has become acceptable, thus ironically killing the creative spirit and lowering the standards of a once great art.

the more I read the more I'm understanding you don't get it. I'm not trying to be harsh , but as one with a degree in Fine Arts from a private established collage, I think I may know at least a bit of which I speak. What did Giotto introduce and is famous for ? Perspective , a more natural space , it's first real use and the first that led into the Italian Renaissance of painting. The idea of realism wasn't born from him. try looking to Greek and roman sculpture or even Egyptian. but he did bring the technique to use it in painting.


This is also much much more apparent in music. In the baroque era, music was bound to point toward the heavens. The spiritual ties with composers like Bach were incredible. In this era, Masses, Motets, Chorales, Fugues, all considered sacred works were king. Music was bound to Religion.

it was because a good deal of benefactors requested such religious works - this says nothing of personal taste of the artist or what they were betrothed too. . You must also bear in mind this important point - what we think of as masters were popular musicians in their day.

Music wasn't bound to just religion - nor was it if most composers could help it. It was benefactors that decided such. Most wanted to write the 'rock' of their day. But they also had to eat and pay the rent.


Throughout the Baroque period, composers continued to be employed by the church and wealthy ruling class. This system of employment was called the patronage system. As the patron paid the composer for each work and usually decided what kind of piece the composer should write, this limited their creative freedom.
Form
Dances were popular during this period as well as preludes, fugues, suites, toccatas and theme and variations. Binary and ternary forms were used frequently.

During the Classical period it became more and more possible for the public to enjoy and participate in leisure activities. Thus, in the music world, the patronage system of the Baroque began to die out and was replaced by the first public concerts where people paid to attend.
Instead of the sudden changes in style and trills of Baroque music, the music of the Classical period tended to be simple, balanced, and non-emotional. Music had straightforward titles like "Symphony No. 1" instead of flowery descriptive titles. Known as absolute music, classical works were written for their own sake, not for dancing or any other special occasion.
Form
Forms used include the minuet and trio, rondo, sonata-allegro, sonatina and theme and variations. Composers also often wrote concertos and dances.


Music saw many changes during the Romantic period
Composers expanded existing musical forms and developed new forms as a way of expressing themselves. Thus, a huge variety of instrumental and vocal music appeared on the scene. There were no restrictions on the length of a piece, the number of movements, or the number of instruments or voices used.
It was during the Romantic period that most of the band instruments came into being as they are today.
Style
Expressive personal feeling

http://www.hypermusic.ca/hist/mainmenu.html[/PLAIN]


This is the example of a fragment of the super-science that existed in pre-history. When Religion, art, myth, science, etc were all one, with archeo-astronomy as the time measurement. It is very powerful. Bach's contemporaries, Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, shifted music but kept it bound to one thing. What was the one thing? The idea that music must imitate the human voice. The rest is history and opera became King. Anyone who has studied Mozart know his operas are by far his most important works. Chopin himself explained to his pupils that the most important aspect of playing his works was the flawless imitation of the human voice. Music thus being bound to the personal aspect of humanity in music, the human voice, led to the touching of many hearts. So now we come today and what is music bound to? Nothing, it is scattered everywhere. Anything goes basically. Creativity today is 'do whatever you want, regardless of the natural laws of rhythm, harmony, or nature itself'. Thus time, the only true judge, will not remember this era well.

and yet to Mozart his favorite works were those done for children !

Creativity today is 'do whatever you want, regardless of the natural laws of rhythm, harmony, or nature itself'.

funny that's what a lot of people thought of the masters during their lifetimes.


Unfortunately that is why you will not see any legendary geniuses anymore (at least for a while). It is not because of gender, lack of talent, or a conspiracy. The fact that art stopped representing the universal truths is the reason why.

Art has never stopped revealing universal truths. It's just some can't handle the truth.

 

[isabeau]

I believe you underestimate the fire and heart of the genius. Genius don't give up, never. If someone told Beethoven or any of them that they could not do what they did or it isn't their place in life, it would just get them to try even harder. Beethoven's father told him he was a useless musician, plus he went deaf later in life, did that stop him? That's why I don't buy this "they were being held down" mantra. Genius can't be held down. If you allow yourself to be held down, then you don't have what it takes to be one. The great ones also don't blame other people for their own shortcomings or under-achievements. As I have stated earlier, it has more to do with drive than pure talent.

I also find it odd that I have given the scientific answers to the OP's question. Yet this being a scientific forum, has no comment on it, and has largely ignored it.

who said these women gave up ? and yes they were held down. in a time when women were property basically of their husbands ?

all one has to do is the math being so called scientific.. take the 1700's for example , make a list of Genius male painters vs female. many women painted but they weren't taken seriously. 'Serious ' art was a mans game. Women who were taken seriously were considered odd and usually shunned socially.

 

[isabeau]

lol

Dont worry, these people will not be remembered in terms of legendary status (like Michaelangelo).

lmao ! you don't think so ? lol they already are !

I'm done. it's evident that you understand art as much as I understand chemistry - very little.

you want art to be what you want it to be - it doesn't work that way . you can't define it . agree or disagree is one thing , but art like love is in the eye of the beholder.

I don't think of crying clowns on black velvet or the Elvis on black velvet as art ...(shudder) but some like it.

 

[falc39]

you don't get it .I'm not suggesting Grisham will become another Shakespeare. I am stating that Shakespeare while alive was concidered popular , not a master. Popular and master are not synonomous.

It doesn't matter, time revealed him as the master. The sands of time is the final judge in this, not what is popular.

the more I read the more I'm understanding you don't get it. I'm not trying to be harsh , but as one with a degree in Fine Arts from a private established collage, I think I may know at least a bit of which I speak. What did Giotto introduce and is famous for ? Perspective , a more natural space , it's first real use and the first that led into the Italian Renaissance of painting. The idea of realism wasn't born from him. try looking to Greek and roman sculpture or even Egyptian. but he did bring the technique to use it in painting.

Textbook answer, but it doesn't even completely refute what I said, if at all. He brought it into painting, and I'm saying it gave painting something to be bound to, more direction if you may. If it wasn't for the first two sentences, I would've thought you were supporting my case. Also, I'm not trying to be harsh, but a degree does not equal total understanding of this subject or anything close to that. Many great artists and composers did not need any formal schooling. Perhaps they just see things differently than people like us?

it was because a good deal of benefactors requested such religious works - this says nothing of personal taste of the artist or what they were betrothed too. . You must also bear in mind this important point - what we think of as masters were popular musicians in their day.

Music wasn't bound to just religion - nor was it if most composers could help it. It was benefactors that decided such. Most wanted to write the 'rock' of their day. But they also had to eat and pay the rent.

Throughout the Baroque period, composers continued to be employed by the church and wealthy ruling class. This system of employment was called the patronage system. As the patron paid the composer for each work and usually decided what kind of piece the composer should write, this limited their creative freedom.
Form
Dances were popular during this period as well as preludes, fugues, suites, toccatas and theme and variations. Binary and ternary forms were used frequently.

Read any of the composer's biographies and tell me they weren't deeply religous and sought that kind of manifestation in their own works. There is no way Bach composed all that he did by force of some benefactor. He composed deeply religous works because to him that was truth. If you were to analyze any of his music, there would be so many deep and hidden religous implications that there was no way his benefactors or whoever would even know about it! (Try the Well Tempered Clavier if you want a good one). Your idea of benefactors controlling everything is directly opposite of my view where it was the artists who were driving the direction.

But again, this is the fallacy that rules and restrictions = less creativity. I beg to differ. Shakespeare held himself to strict laws. I'm guessing people like you believe he would have been more creative if he hadn't obeyed the iambic pantameter? Bach held himself to stric laws (Study his fugues and you will know what I mean). It is the ability to variate and create within strict natural laws that make art stand the test of time. A true artist uses strict rules to boost creativity while a novice blames rules for their creativity (or lack thereof).

During the Classical period it became more and more possible for the public to enjoy and participate in leisure activities. Thus, in the music world, the patronage system of the Baroque began to die out and was replaced by the first public concerts where people paid to attend.
Instead of the sudden changes in style and trills of Baroque music, the music of the Classical period tended to be simple, balanced, and non-emotional. Music had straightforward titles like "Symphony No. 1" instead of flowery descriptive titles. Known as absolute music, classical works were written for their own sake, not for dancing or any other special occasion.
Form
Forms used include the minuet and trio, rondo, sonata-allegro, sonatina and theme and variations. Composers also often wrote concertos and dances.

Music saw many changes during the Romantic period
Composers expanded existing musical forms and developed new forms as a way of expressing themselves. Thus, a huge variety of instrumental and vocal music appeared on the scene. There were no restrictions on the length of a piece, the number of movements, or the number of instruments or voices used.
It was during the Romantic period that most of the band instruments came into being as they are today.
Style
Expressive personal feeling

This is completely textbook, why it leaves out Opera, I have no idea. Just goes to show how off it is. The title of the music has nothing to do with the music or if it will be remembered. Stay away from these dry textbook definitions I assure you they have no idea what the art really means. For your own sake, maybe it is better to (gasp!) study the works yourself and come up with your own ideas and thoughts.

and yet to Mozart his favorite works were those done for children !

Creativity today is 'do whatever you want, regardless of the natural laws of rhythm, harmony, or nature itself'.

funny that's what a lot of people thought of the masters during their lifetimes.

His favorite genre were his operas, regardless there is nothing wrong with writing for children. I don't see how we are in disagreement here. That is the definition of creativity today. I was told that by my composition professor. How else could you explain splashing a bucket of paint on a canvass and calling it art and everything else under the sun?

 

[falc39]

Art has never stopped revealing universal truths. It's just some can't handle the truth.

who said these women gave up ? and yes they were held down. in a time when women were property basically of their husbands ?

all one has to do is the math being so called scientific.. take the 1700's for example , make a list of Genius male painters vs female. many women painted but they weren't taken seriously. 'Serious ' art was a mans game. Women who were taken seriously were considered odd and usually shunned socially.

Really? I can't handle the truth? I'm starting to detect major sexist agenda here. Apparently there our egos that can't accept that males and females are biologically different. Unless that is exposed, what I say will mean nothing because you will always find some excuse as to why and how that has happened. Have you ever thought that maybe you are the one that can't handle the truth? I was hoping that this being a scientific forum that I wouldn't have to write about testosterone and its effects, but maybe I do have to, just so we can answer the OP's original question...

lmao ! you don't think so ? lol they already are !

I'm done. it's evident that you understand art as much as I understand chemistry - very little.

You are partially correct, I am not a painter but a musician/composer, so my statements of painting may not always be entirely accurate. But remember, time has not really had it's final say yet, so I wouldn't be laughing so quickly.

 

[Math Is Hard]

I was hoping that this being a scientific forum that I wouldn't have to write about testosterone and its effects, but maybe I do have to, just so we can answer the OP's original question...

What we've been discussing here, "legendary artistic ability", is a relative and subjective concept, and there's no clear way to disentangle a biological basis from social and cultural factors in the past.

I took a look for "testosterone and sexual transmutation" as you suggested earlier, and mostly found strange, crackpottish links selling books such as "SEX TRANSMUTATIONow to use SEX to "electrify" your mental powers and become a rampant creative genius!"

I'm sorry, but that sort of stuff just sets my teeth on edge. If you have references to specifically testosterone-related studies from credible sources, that might fare better in the future when supporting your posts.

From the social sciences perspective, I think things have run their course here. Thread closed.