 |
Challenging Tradition: Women of the Academy, 1826-2003The National Academy Museum, formerly the National Academy of Design, is located on Fifth Avenue, just a block north of the Guggenheim Museum. Unlike the Guggenheim, however, it does not pride itself on its cutting-edge exhibitions. Rather, its purpose is to preserve a heritage; in fact, it is an art conservatory, in the tradition of the great academies of London, Paris, and Rome.In an exhibit that continues through January 4, 2004, however, the Academy challenges its own traditions, merely by featuring art by its women members from the time of its founding to the present. There is nothing inherently controversial about this show—but then, it must be remembered that women had a tough time entering art schools and achieving recognition at all until recently. So the concept of a woman's show, in itself, must be considered revolutionary.
 |
| Cecilia Beaux, Self-Portrait, 1894, Oil on canvas. (Photo courtesy of National Academy of Design) |
|
This Academy began accepting women as early as 1826, but they have always been consigned to a minority, way out of proportion to the number of women artists in the population. In the Academy's first year there was one woman and 32 men. By 1865 women made up five percent of the academicians, and though the percentage rose slowly, today they still comprise only 20 percent.The question one always asks on viewing such a show is: Is there a difference between men and women artists? Would you know without being told that women created these works? If there is a difference, what is it? Does it matter?The answers are not always evident—and they are certainly not to be based on quality. Of course, a great number of the works in the show are self-portraits or portraits of other women artists, so this is one giveaway. Otherwise, there is a great deal of heterogeneity.If you get out of the elevator on the fourth floor where the show starts, you find yourself in a tiny room filled with wonderful black-and-white photos of the early days of the classes in the academies. In one of them we see a number of very serious-looking women and two men: one their teacher; the other, a muscular, nearly nude model. It made me recall the story of how Thomas Eakins was fired from the academy in Philadelphia for removing a male model's loincloth to better show some musculature. It was not easy for women to take life classes in those early days. On the far wall is a large 1987 self-portrait of Louisa Matthiasdottir (1917-2000), bold in blue overalls and a pink headscarf. Strong, almost "manly," she commands a striking presence on the simply designed canvas.In the next rooms on that floor are 19th- and early 20th-century depictions of a multitude of women, both self-portraits and portraits by others. Some are traditionally "feminine" in appearance, but just as many project independent, no-nonsense, or even avant-garde miens. In Ellen Emmet Rand's Self-Portrait (1927), the artist wears glasses and a felt hat. Holding a huge palette, she stares right at us, in a manner reminiscent of the great 18th-century painter, J. B. Chardin. Interspersed with the portraits stand various pieces of sculpture, mostly busts or animal subjects, carried out in a number of different styles and media.Descending to the third floor, you notice more modern and far more diverse art. Here there is no way you would recognize it as exclusively women's art without being told. There is much variety to be found, from Patricia Nix's 1988 jaunty brushwork and drippy expressionism to Altoon Sultan's tight realism depicting a farm scene dominated by a tractor, to Lilly Harmon's Milton Avery-like female nude.
 |
| Sue Coe, Slaughterhouse in Prison System, 1993, Lithograph. (Photo courtesy of National Academy of Design) |
|
Some of the other high points of the show include works by Cecilia Beaux and Mary Cassatt, both late 19th- and early 20th-century Impressionists. In Beaux's painting Self-Portrait (1892), she is 39 but looks more like 20, her unrestrained and fresh brushwork exuding youthful vigor. Cassatt, unquestionably the greatest artist in the exhibition, is represented by a tiny drypoint print, titled The Map or The Lesson (1889-90). Totally unsentimental and technically flawless, the print depicts two girls absorbed in studying a piece of paper on a table. The work, amazingly, packs an impact that belies its small physical size and its black-and-white format.Isabel Bishop's Nude Study of 1934, nearly half a century later, is beautiful, small, compact, and monochrome. Like Cassatt's, her work possesses a directness and warmth that comes from familiarity and empathy rather than the invasive "male gaze."Elaine deKooning, better known as the wife of Willem deKooning, is well represented by a tough, loose, and brushy Portrait of Joe Montgomery (1978). While a certain number of the works fit into a more stereotypical view of women's art, others are particularly aggressive and angry. Striking works of this sort include Nancy Grossman's 1992 bronze sculpture titled Gunhead, Sue Coe's 1993 lithograph Slaughterhouse in Prison System (Standing Pig), and Louise Bourgeois's sculpture Untitled (Germinal), dated 1967-95. All three succeed in causing the viewer discomfort, the first two with their direct critiques of human viciousness, and the third with a disturbing group of phallic symbols protruding from a half sphere.The reviewer of The New York Times recently criticized the exhibition for not overtly challenging tradition. However, what he really did was to use it as a pretext to demean the notion of the "Academy" itself. But this is not fair. Whether an individual reviewer likes it or not, the Academy has long been a vital part of the history of art, both here and abroad. The present exhibition must be seen in context. The issue is not whether the show is shocking or revelatory; it is whether it is timely. I would maintain that it is both timely and about time we see the works created by women of the Academy. It is to the Academy's credit that they have highlighted their own history of exclusion and/or marginalization of women, and they should be applauded for doing something about it, at long last. In appointing Annette Blaugrund as its first woman director in 1997, the Academy took a direct stand against gender discrimination, and this show is a laudable effort to move forward further in that direction.The National Academy Museum is located at 1083 Fifth Avenue (between 89th and 90th Streets). Hours are Wednesday and Thursday, noon-5 p.m.; Friday-Sunday, 11 a.m.-6 p.m. The museum is closed on Monday and Tuesday.Art historian Greta Berman has been on the liberal arts faculty since 1979.
|
