I'm not sure if the correct response to this should be 'No shit, Sherlock?'
Study Finds Artists Become Famous through Their Friends, Not the Originality of Their Work.
Though I would have thought the process of time might winnow out a few artists who just happened to be mates with Kandinsky or whoever... but at least they got that start, which some other person didn't.
I also felt that perhaps the dimension of gender was a bit lacking in that piece: how many of the women (of the rather few women in that diagrammed network) only got to be anywhere in that network through marriage or liaisons with bloke artists and their foothold there thus being somewhat precarious on that account? (And having to drop everything to model for Teh Geenyus, perchance.) Even if they did use two women (positioned as 'neither... is a household name'...) to illustrate the benefits of having a large and diverse cultural circle.
Somehow that seemed to resonate with this #ThanksForTyping Spotlights Unnamed Women In Literary Acknowledgments - actually it seems to be scholarly, rather than literary, acknowledgements: [T]he women thanked for their labor were much more than typists, which already could be considered a hefty job. They were translators, editors, proofreaders and copy editors, she says.
It's the Mary Lyell thing all over again - again - again This entry was originally posted at https://oursin.dreamwidth.org/2892983.html. Please comment there using OpenID. View
comments.