In her essay, “Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?” (originally published in the January 1971 issue of ARTNews), feminist art historian Linda Nochlin writes:

“The question “Why have there been no great women artists?” has led us to the conclusion, so far, that art is not a free, autonomous activity of a super-endowed individual, “influenced” by previous artists, and, more vaguely and superficially, by “social forces,” but rather, that the total situation of art making, both in terms of the development of the art maker and in the nature and quality of the work of art itself, occur in a social situation, are integral elements of this social structure, and are mediated and determined by specific and definable social institutions, be they art academies, systems of patronage, mythologies of the divine creator, artist as he-man or social outcast.”

That is, inequality is systemic, written into the design of our social structures–art history included.

One of the reasons why feminist art holds resonance is that it brings the subject of lived experience into the formal and aesthetic realm. However, this emphasis on personal experience may be (and in fact, was intended to be) antithetical to the values of the art market and art institutions at large. So the question faced by Judy Chicago in the 1960s, and by artists working today, remains: Do you change your work to fit existing (perhaps sexist) structures, work to change the institutions of art, or create alternate models? While these changes should be made by the leadership of museums, galleries, and individual collectors, they also need take place within art schools (where young artists are socialized and mentored), in the artistic community, and at home. I agree with Laura that if gender equality and opportunity are to flourish, the cause needs to also be taken up by men, and not just by women alone.

Even once they have gained access to the art world, artists working today–particularly non-white and non-male–face the dilemma of whether they want to be identified as such, or whether they can be known as an “artist” without cultural or gendered qualifications. I remember an interesting classroom conversation from art school, in which I wondered that if we commonly use terms like “black woman artist” or “outsider artist,” why don’t we also feel inclined to call someone a “white male insider artist”? Of course, doing so would reveal the implicit bias in the way we use language in society.

In addition to gauging the achievement of women artists through such markers as auction prices and blockbuster exhibitions, I think it is equally important for male and female artists to have access the works of women artists of the past and to publicly acknowledge these influences in order to establish that these lineages and traditions belong within the canon of art history.

Let’s see, there are emerging artists, mid career artists and? So it boils down to a twofold problem; the singular focus an artist needs and a supportive society.

I don’t see where much has changed.

Cynical? I’d call it a blunt statement of reality, which often annoys people, including “radicals” who are supposed to be into kicking the beehive with blunt expressions of reality but who don’t want their own beehive kicked.