"Only men are capable of aesthetic greatness."
You know, my opinion of modern "fine art" aside, this is an interesting article. It discusses the disparity in price between men's art and women's art. The most telling quote is this one, from a first-rate sexist pigfucker named Brian Sewell who is, predictably, both male and not an artist. Just a critic. And a cack-brained one, too.
"The art market is not sexist," Mr Sewell said. "The likes of Bridget Riley and Louise Bourgeois are of the second and third rank. There has never been a first-rank woman artist.
"Only men are capable of aesthetic greatness. Women make up 50 per cent or more of classes at art school. Yet they fade away in their late 20s or 30s. Maybe it's something to do with bearing children."
Read the whole thing here.
I'm not sure it's a simple equation, with the only factor there being women as artists. It is a complex equation; some of it has to do with sexist buyers, some of it has to do with sexist curators, and some of it has to do with differing opportunities for men and women. Yes, some of it may even have to do with the fact that women generally are still expected to bear and care for children, and therefore lose many productive years.
I do not think it is in doubt, however, that culture-wide sexism is strongly reflected in the art world. The causes of sexism in what should be a much more egalitarian subculture are debatable, but the fact that the sexism exists really is not.
"The art market is not sexist. . . . Only men are capable of aesthetic greatness."
Hey, Brian. Go fuck your left hand, you self-important jerkoff. And while you're at it, shove your inflated opinion up your ass for an extra thrill.
It really, really confuses the fuck out of me how people can fail so utterly to see the sexism that surrounds them. Some of it is no doubt simple ignorance. Those people can be reached. I woke up. Most of it is the deliberate donning of blinkers, though. People just don't want to see this shit, especially people who are on the upper rungs of the ladder.
It's so much easier to scorn and disrespect and completely dismiss people who have been shat on than wonder whether or not any of that shit might not, in fact be yours.
"The art market is not sexist," Mr Sewell said. "The likes of Bridget Riley and Louise Bourgeois are of the second and third rank. There has never been a first-rank woman artist.
"Only men are capable of aesthetic greatness. Women make up 50 per cent or more of classes at art school. Yet they fade away in their late 20s or 30s. Maybe it's something to do with bearing children."
Read the whole thing here.
I'm not sure it's a simple equation, with the only factor there being women as artists. It is a complex equation; some of it has to do with sexist buyers, some of it has to do with sexist curators, and some of it has to do with differing opportunities for men and women. Yes, some of it may even have to do with the fact that women generally are still expected to bear and care for children, and therefore lose many productive years.
I do not think it is in doubt, however, that culture-wide sexism is strongly reflected in the art world. The causes of sexism in what should be a much more egalitarian subculture are debatable, but the fact that the sexism exists really is not.
"The art market is not sexist. . . . Only men are capable of aesthetic greatness."
Hey, Brian. Go fuck your left hand, you self-important jerkoff. And while you're at it, shove your inflated opinion up your ass for an extra thrill.
It really, really confuses the fuck out of me how people can fail so utterly to see the sexism that surrounds them. Some of it is no doubt simple ignorance. Those people can be reached. I woke up. Most of it is the deliberate donning of blinkers, though. People just don't want to see this shit, especially people who are on the upper rungs of the ladder.
It's so much easier to scorn and disrespect and completely dismiss people who have been shat on than wonder whether or not any of that shit might not, in fact be yours.