âčïž Skipped - page is already crawled
| Filter | Status | Condition | Details |
|---|---|---|---|
| HTTP status | PASS | download_http_code = 200 | HTTP 200 |
| Age cutoff | PASS | download_stamp > now() - 6 MONTH | 0.1 months ago |
| History drop | PASS | isNull(history_drop_reason) | No drop reason |
| Spam/ban | PASS | fh_dont_index != 1 AND ml_spam_score = 0 | ml_spam_score=0 |
| Canonical | PASS | meta_canonical IS NULL OR = '' OR = src_unparsed | Not set |
| Property | Value | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| URL | https://thepenitentreview.com/2023/03/15/katy-hessel-the-story-of-art-without-men/ | ||||||||||||||||||
| Last Crawled | 2026-04-21 01:25:37 (2 days ago) | ||||||||||||||||||
| First Indexed | 2023-03-16 19:25:22 (3 years ago) | ||||||||||||||||||
| HTTP Status Code | 200 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Content | |||||||||||||||||||
| Meta Title | Katy Hessel, The Story of Art Without Men â The Penitent Review | ||||||||||||||||||
| Meta Description | null | ||||||||||||||||||
| Meta Canonical | null | ||||||||||||||||||
| Boilerpipe Text | Advertising works. I kept seeing this book everywhereâon social media, in the news, on the shelves at my local bookstore. I like art. Iâm an advocate for feminism, to use bell hooksâs preferred phrase. Surely, Iâd get on well with this book. I bought it and started reading.
Unfortunately, the problems start on pretty much the first page. A short introduction sets out the bookâs aims and models and both are questionable. Thereâs a nod to Linda Nochlinâs famous 1971 essay âWhy Have There Been No Great Women Artists?â, but then we come to what seems to be the real inspiration for this book: E.H. Gombrichâs 1950
The Story of Art. â
Itâs a wonderful book but for one flawâ, author Katy Hessel writes. The flaw being that Gombrich didnât give a damn about women artists: in the first edition, there were no women and even in editions as late as the sixteenth, that figure only ever tipped to one. Yet rather than reject Gombrichâs âflawed approachâ, Hessel seems to want to recreate it, only this time âbreak down the canonâ and include the women. Wait. What? The canon. As in that outdated and sexist idea of a list of the most important works of art or literature or whatever, usually made up of 100% dead white dudes. I mean, I love (some, but not all) dead white dudes. But thatâs not the kind of feminism Iâm interested in. The fact that Hesselâs project takes for its centre of gravity a concept so deeply rooted in white supremacy and patriarchy speaks to a lack of critical engagement with feminist histories and historiography. For art historian Maura Reilly, ârevising the canon to address the neglect of women and/or minority artists is fundamentally an
impossible
project because such revision does not grapple with the terms that created that neglect in the first placeâ.
I so wanted
The Story of Art Without Men
to be great, but itâs waging war against me on multiple fronts. Firstly, and perhaps most frustratingly, the âcorrectiveâ approach to art history on display here, with its hyped-up narratives of ârediscoveryâ, is underpinned by a regressive girl-boss feminism that basically just wants women to have more shows at Gagosian and sell for more money at Sothebyâs. This is a feminism that superficially gestures in the direction of diversity and inclusivity without understanding the ways in which intersectional frameworks demand fundamentally different ways of doing things. It isnât a feminism that seems interested in imagining a radically more equitable artworld/s for all participants.
Elsewhere
, Iâve written about the problems of the âhidden heroesâ trope or âforgottenâ women. These women artists were never hidden. They were members of families and artistic communities, they had relationships with patrons, collectors, curators and others. Visual culture theorist Ariella Azoulay has also pointed out that a major problem of alternative histories is that they propose âsome things as âhidden historiesâ in need of discovery, [which are not] hidden things or histories but rather open secrets known far beyond the archive and the grammar invented as guardian of its orderly usesâ.
Secondly, despite the long parade of names of women artists from the seventeenth century to today, the bookâs politics suck. Without any real sense of self-awareness,
The Story of Art Without Men
enacts a huge erasure of other women. Namely, women (and men) art historians, academics, artists journalists, curators and other art workers. Not a single one of the words written in this 450-page book would have been possible without the vital contribution of the people who have dedicated themselves to the study of the artists mentioned throughout. As far as I can tell, Hesselâs book is not one of original research and scholarship, but a combination of facts cribbed from other academic and popular texts and blog-post casual reflections on her favourite artworks. Despite a brief, generic acknowledgement in the introduction, the work of these (mostly) women has been completely sidelined. Yes, there are limited notes and bibliography at the back of the book, but this is token in comparison to the general erasure and complete absence of those who have done the intellectual work which underpins this book. I also feel that thereâs a complete lack of understanding that constantly promoting the argument that women have been systematically excluded from art history, without any nuance or specificity, in turn acts to erase the last fifty years of feminist art history.
For example, at the end of the two-and-a-half-page section on eighteenth-century Venetian pastellist, Rosalba Carriera, who painted Louis XV and received honorary membership to the AcadĂ©mie Royale, Hessel writes that by the time the French Revolution turned up, Rococo fell from fashion and âfor centuries, Carriera was forgottenâ. The implication being, naturally, that it is thanks to this book that Carriera is being rescued from obscurity. In the notes section, thereâs a link to an article on Christieâs website (from which Hessel seems to have paraphrased), a two-page citation to another recent âwomen artistsâ compilation book, and only one citation to a book actually about Carriera: Angela Obererâs 2020
The Life and Work of Rosabla Carriera: The Queen of Pastel.
Where is Bernardina Saniâs 2007 catalogue raisonnĂ© (published in Italian)? Or the extensive entry on Carriera by Neil Jeffaresâwho has dedicated his entire career to pastellistsâin his
Dictionary of pastellists before 1800
? Or Julia Dabbâs anthology,
Life Stories of Women Artists 1550-1800
(2009)? Why not mention the early-twentieth-century monograph by Emilie von Hoerschelmann (written in German)? What about the exhibitions of her work in Karlsruhe in 1975 and in Venice in 1994, 1997 and 2007? Or is an artist only forgotten if they arenât being written about in English and exhibited in London and New York?
Similarly, a chapter on quiltmaking opens with the line, âArt historians have overlooked quilting as a key medium for far too longâ. Whenever I see a sentence like that, my first thought is that whoever wrote it probably hasnât taken the time to actually look and see who has been doing the work. If Hessel had taken as much care to respect the work of women intellectuals as she claims to respect women artists, then she might have paid tribute to work done by pioneering Black scholars like Cuesta Benberry who dedicated her professional life to African-American presences in American quilting, or Gladys-Marie Fry, whose 1989 book
Stitched from the Soul: Slave Quilts from the Ante-Bellum South
was one of the first books to look at the role of quilting among enslaved communities in the U.S. Fryâs work demonstrated that it wasnât only African American women who made quilts, but African American men, too, enslaved men among them. The complexities of these and other histories speak loudly as to why the overly-simplistic âinclusion/exclusion paradigmâ (a turn of phrase borrowed from Dr. Kimberly Schreiber) followed by Hessel is completely regressive. Or, as Virginia Wolf put it, âin relation to women writers, you have to leave room to deal with other things besides their work, so much has that work been influenced by conditions that have nothing whatever to do with artâ. When you try to cram 500 years of art history into a single book, with each artist getting no more than a few paragraphs, thereâs simply no way you can address any of Woolfâs âother thingsâ (by which, just to be absolutely clear, I mean, things like class and race, family connections and networks, or caring responsibilities).
Hesselâs blinkered feminism causes other problems, too. Just as the book seems mired in its obsession with rediscovery, the canon and downplaying the contexts and communities in which women worked, so too is there an inability to address difference with a critical eye. Women, here, are flattened into a single entity: artists. Because of this, many of them are celebrated as ârebelsâ or âgame-changersâ and written about in the language of pseudo-feminist hero-worship. Repeating the most sensational aspects of their livesâwhich ironically, almost always feature male, sometimes female, loversâthe book repeats the same soundbites so beloved by publicity departments in big museums and galleries to promote their blockbuster exhibitions of ânewly-discoveredâ women artists. To get big audiences through the doors, and help pay for the expensive solo exhibition, museums hawk their exhibitions of women artists as being about ârediscovered rebelsâ rather than as artists. This is how we come to hear more about Artemisia Gentileschi as a rape victim, Frida Khaloâs tempestuous marriage to Diego Rivera, and Camille Claudel as a woman spurned by Rodin. When we hear or read more about these women in terms of things men did to them than we do of their work as artists or the richness of their lives as women, both aspects are trivialised. And in a book like this, where women artists are flattened into a single entity, there are some alarming instances where uncritically celebrating artists for their sole virtue of being women is more important than taking an informed, critical approach to their output.
A good example is the short section on photographer Diane Arbus. Much revered in the commercial art world, Arbusâs work remains controversial and contested. Yet Hessel either ignores or is ignorant of the fact that there are still many who take issue with Arbusâs portraits of those who she calls âon the âfringesâ of societyâdrag queens, circus performers, strippers, sex workersâ. While you could argue, as plenty have, that Arbus championed normalising representation of marginalised groups, itâs difficult to make the same argument for the images she took of the men and women living in New Jersey residences for developmentally and intellectually disabled people between 1969 and 1971. Following the 2003 release of many of Arbusâs letters and journals, certain voices (Peter Schjeldahl in
The New Yorker
, among others) insisted that Arbus wasnât voyeuristic but empathetic, but such arguments ring hollow to me. Hessel notes that Arbusâs images were controversial in their dayâas if the controversy has come to an endâbut insists, in her ever-positive voice, that they âdocument an unfiltered depiction of a world so often dismissed from art history and sidelined by societyâ.
While the intention of this book is laudable enough, as I tell my students regularly, intention is only one side of any story.
The Story of Art Without Men
presents itself as a radical feminist history of art, but it is far from it. Beyond providing a helpful catalogue of names of womenâs artists, its politics are a problem. It is superficial, lacking in criticality and depth. It perpetuates the erasure of some womenâs work while purporting to celebrate that of others. If youâre looking for feminist art histories about women artists, look to Linda Nochlin and Griselda Pollock, to Kellie Jones and Lisa Gail Collins, to Norma Broude and Mary Garrard. Look anywhere else, but not here. | ||||||||||||||||||
| Markdown | - [Home](https://thepenitentreview.com/)
- [Reviews](https://thepenitentreview.com/category/reviews/)
- [Conversations](https://thepenitentreview.com/category/conversations-on-art/)
- [Archive](https://thepenitentreview.com/category/archive/)
- [About](https://thepenitentreview.com/about/)
## [](https://thepenitentreview.com/)
[Crystal Bennes](https://thepenitentreview.com/category/cb/ "View all posts in Crystal Bennes") [Reviews](https://thepenitentreview.com/category/reviews/ "View all posts in Reviews")
# Katy Hessel, The Story of Art Without Men
March 15, 2023
[](https://thepenitentreview.com/2023/03/15/katy-hessel-the-story-of-art-without-men/)
Advertising works. I kept seeing this book everywhereâon social media, in the news, on the shelves at my local bookstore. I like art. Iâm an advocate for feminism, to use bell hooksâs preferred phrase. Surely, Iâd get on well with this book. I bought it and started reading.
Unfortunately, the problems start on pretty much the first page. A short introduction sets out the bookâs aims and models and both are questionable. Thereâs a nod to Linda Nochlinâs famous 1971 essay âWhy Have There Been No Great Women Artists?â, but then we come to what seems to be the real inspiration for this book: E.H. Gombrichâs 1950 *The Story of Art. â*Itâs a wonderful book but for one flawâ, author Katy Hessel writes. The flaw being that Gombrich didnât give a damn about women artists: in the first edition, there were no women and even in editions as late as the sixteenth, that figure only ever tipped to one. Yet rather than reject Gombrichâs âflawed approachâ, Hessel seems to want to recreate it, only this time âbreak down the canonâ and include the women. Wait. What? The canon. As in that outdated and sexist idea of a list of the most important works of art or literature or whatever, usually made up of 100% dead white dudes. I mean, I love (some, but not all) dead white dudes. But thatâs not the kind of feminism Iâm interested in. The fact that Hesselâs project takes for its centre of gravity a concept so deeply rooted in white supremacy and patriarchy speaks to a lack of critical engagement with feminist histories and historiography. For art historian Maura Reilly, ârevising the canon to address the neglect of women and/or minority artists is fundamentally an *impossible* project because such revision does not grapple with the terms that created that neglect in the first placeâ.
I so wanted *The Story of Art Without Men* to be great, but itâs waging war against me on multiple fronts. Firstly, and perhaps most frustratingly, the âcorrectiveâ approach to art history on display here, with its hyped-up narratives of ârediscoveryâ, is underpinned by a regressive girl-boss feminism that basically just wants women to have more shows at Gagosian and sell for more money at Sothebyâs. This is a feminism that superficially gestures in the direction of diversity and inclusivity without understanding the ways in which intersectional frameworks demand fundamentally different ways of doing things. It isnât a feminism that seems interested in imagining a radically more equitable artworld/s for all participants. [Elsewhere](https://www.eriskayconnection.com/home/123-klara-and-the-bomb.html), Iâve written about the problems of the âhidden heroesâ trope or âforgottenâ women. These women artists were never hidden. They were members of families and artistic communities, they had relationships with patrons, collectors, curators and others. Visual culture theorist Ariella Azoulay has also pointed out that a major problem of alternative histories is that they propose âsome things as âhidden historiesâ in need of discovery, \[which are not\] hidden things or histories but rather open secrets known far beyond the archive and the grammar invented as guardian of its orderly usesâ.
Secondly, despite the long parade of names of women artists from the seventeenth century to today, the bookâs politics suck. Without any real sense of self-awareness, *The Story of Art Without Men* enacts a huge erasure of other women. Namely, women (and men) art historians, academics, artists journalists, curators and other art workers. Not a single one of the words written in this 450-page book would have been possible without the vital contribution of the people who have dedicated themselves to the study of the artists mentioned throughout. As far as I can tell, Hesselâs book is not one of original research and scholarship, but a combination of facts cribbed from other academic and popular texts and blog-post casual reflections on her favourite artworks. Despite a brief, generic acknowledgement in the introduction, the work of these (mostly) women has been completely sidelined. Yes, there are limited notes and bibliography at the back of the book, but this is token in comparison to the general erasure and complete absence of those who have done the intellectual work which underpins this book. I also feel that thereâs a complete lack of understanding that constantly promoting the argument that women have been systematically excluded from art history, without any nuance or specificity, in turn acts to erase the last fifty years of feminist art history.
For example, at the end of the two-and-a-half-page section on eighteenth-century Venetian pastellist, Rosalba Carriera, who painted Louis XV and received honorary membership to the AcadĂ©mie Royale, Hessel writes that by the time the French Revolution turned up, Rococo fell from fashion and âfor centuries, Carriera was forgottenâ. The implication being, naturally, that it is thanks to this book that Carriera is being rescued from obscurity. In the notes section, thereâs a link to an article on Christieâs website (from which Hessel seems to have paraphrased), a two-page citation to another recent âwomen artistsâ compilation book, and only one citation to a book actually about Carriera: Angela Obererâs 2020 *The Life and Work of Rosabla Carriera: The Queen of Pastel.* Where is Bernardina Saniâs 2007 catalogue raisonnĂ© (published in Italian)? Or the extensive entry on Carriera by Neil Jeffaresâwho has dedicated his entire career to pastellistsâin his *Dictionary of pastellists before 1800*? Or Julia Dabbâs anthology, *Life Stories of Women Artists 1550-1800* (2009)? Why not mention the early-twentieth-century monograph by Emilie von Hoerschelmann (written in German)? What about the exhibitions of her work in Karlsruhe in 1975 and in Venice in 1994, 1997 and 2007? Or is an artist only forgotten if they arenât being written about in English and exhibited in London and New York?
Similarly, a chapter on quiltmaking opens with the line, âArt historians have overlooked quilting as a key medium for far too longâ. Whenever I see a sentence like that, my first thought is that whoever wrote it probably hasnât taken the time to actually look and see who has been doing the work. If Hessel had taken as much care to respect the work of women intellectuals as she claims to respect women artists, then she might have paid tribute to work done by pioneering Black scholars like Cuesta Benberry who dedicated her professional life to African-American presences in American quilting, or Gladys-Marie Fry, whose 1989 book *Stitched from the Soul: Slave Quilts from the Ante-Bellum South* was one of the first books to look at the role of quilting among enslaved communities in the U.S. Fryâs work demonstrated that it wasnât only African American women who made quilts, but African American men, too, enslaved men among them. The complexities of these and other histories speak loudly as to why the overly-simplistic âinclusion/exclusion paradigmâ (a turn of phrase borrowed from Dr. Kimberly Schreiber) followed by Hessel is completely regressive. Or, as Virginia Wolf put it, âin relation to women writers, you have to leave room to deal with other things besides their work, so much has that work been influenced by conditions that have nothing whatever to do with artâ. When you try to cram 500 years of art history into a single book, with each artist getting no more than a few paragraphs, thereâs simply no way you can address any of Woolfâs âother thingsâ (by which, just to be absolutely clear, I mean, things like class and race, family connections and networks, or caring responsibilities).
Hesselâs blinkered feminism causes other problems, too. Just as the book seems mired in its obsession with rediscovery, the canon and downplaying the contexts and communities in which women worked, so too is there an inability to address difference with a critical eye. Women, here, are flattened into a single entity: artists. Because of this, many of them are celebrated as ârebelsâ or âgame-changersâ and written about in the language of pseudo-feminist hero-worship. Repeating the most sensational aspects of their livesâwhich ironically, almost always feature male, sometimes female, loversâthe book repeats the same soundbites so beloved by publicity departments in big museums and galleries to promote their blockbuster exhibitions of ânewly-discoveredâ women artists. To get big audiences through the doors, and help pay for the expensive solo exhibition, museums hawk their exhibitions of women artists as being about ârediscovered rebelsâ rather than as artists. This is how we come to hear more about Artemisia Gentileschi as a rape victim, Frida Khaloâs tempestuous marriage to Diego Rivera, and Camille Claudel as a woman spurned by Rodin. When we hear or read more about these women in terms of things men did to them than we do of their work as artists or the richness of their lives as women, both aspects are trivialised. And in a book like this, where women artists are flattened into a single entity, there are some alarming instances where uncritically celebrating artists for their sole virtue of being women is more important than taking an informed, critical approach to their output.
A good example is the short section on photographer Diane Arbus. Much revered in the commercial art world, Arbusâs work remains controversial and contested. Yet Hessel either ignores or is ignorant of the fact that there are still many who take issue with Arbusâs portraits of those who she calls âon the âfringesâ of societyâdrag queens, circus performers, strippers, sex workersâ. While you could argue, as plenty have, that Arbus championed normalising representation of marginalised groups, itâs difficult to make the same argument for the images she took of the men and women living in New Jersey residences for developmentally and intellectually disabled people between 1969 and 1971. Following the 2003 release of many of Arbusâs letters and journals, certain voices (Peter Schjeldahl in *The New Yorker*, among others) insisted that Arbus wasnât voyeuristic but empathetic, but such arguments ring hollow to me. Hessel notes that Arbusâs images were controversial in their dayâas if the controversy has come to an endâbut insists, in her ever-positive voice, that they âdocument an unfiltered depiction of a world so often dismissed from art history and sidelined by societyâ.
While the intention of this book is laudable enough, as I tell my students regularly, intention is only one side of any story. *The Story of Art Without Men* presents itself as a radical feminist history of art, but it is far from it. Beyond providing a helpful catalogue of names of womenâs artists, its politics are a problem. It is superficial, lacking in criticality and depth. It perpetuates the erasure of some womenâs work while purporting to celebrate that of others. If youâre looking for feminist art histories about women artists, look to Linda Nochlin and Griselda Pollock, to Kellie Jones and Lisa Gail Collins, to Norma Broude and Mary Garrard. Look anywhere else, but not here.
Share
##### [The Penitent Review](https://thepenitentreview.com/author/thepenitentreview_t1idjg/ "Posts by The Penitent Review")
The Penitent Review is Dr. Crystal Bennes and Tom Jeffreys. Together, and sometimes separately, they converse on art, artists and, occasionally, the art world.
#### You Might Also Like
[](https://thepenitentreview.com/2023/01/17/review-of-recycling-beauty-at-prada-foundation-milan/)
### [âRecycling Beautyâ at Prada Foundation, Milan](https://thepenitentreview.com/2023/01/17/review-of-recycling-beauty-at-prada-foundation-milan/)
January 17, 2023
[](https://thepenitentreview.com/2026/03/21/rehana-zaman-soft-fruit/)
### [Rehana Zaman, âSoft Fruitâ](https://thepenitentreview.com/2026/03/21/rehana-zaman-soft-fruit/)
March 21, 2026
[](https://thepenitentreview.com/2024/09/04/we-move-as-a-murmuration-at-timespan-helmsdale/)
### [We Move As A Murmuration at Timespan, Helmsdale](https://thepenitentreview.com/2024/09/04/we-move-as-a-murmuration-at-timespan-helmsdale/)
September 4, 2024
#### About TPR
The Penitent Review is Dr. Crystal Bennes and Tom Jeffreys. Together, and sometimes separately, they converse on art, artists and, occasionally, the art world.
[Read More](https://thepenitentreview.com/about/)
#### Subscribe & Follow
#### Newsletter
#### Must-Read Articles
[](https://thepenitentreview.com/2026/03/21/rehana-zaman-soft-fruit/) 1
#### [Rehana Zaman, âSoft Fruitâ](https://thepenitentreview.com/2026/03/21/rehana-zaman-soft-fruit/)
March 21, 2026
[](https://thepenitentreview.com/2026/03/10/shahana-rajani-lines-that-world-a-river-at-nottingham-contemporary/) 2
#### [Shahana Rajani, âLines that World a Riverâ at Nottingham Contemporary](https://thepenitentreview.com/2026/03/10/shahana-rajani-lines-that-world-a-river-at-nottingham-contemporary/)
March 10, 2026
[](https://thepenitentreview.com/2026/02/11/postcard-from-basel-bern/) 3
#### [Postcard from Basel (& Bern)](https://thepenitentreview.com/2026/02/11/postcard-from-basel-bern/)
February 11, 2026
#### Reviews
#### Conversations
#### Archives
- [Archive](https://thepenitentreview.com/category/archive/) (12)
- [Conversations](https://thepenitentreview.com/category/conversations-on-art/) (16)
- [Crystal Bennes](https://thepenitentreview.com/category/cb/) (7)
- [Crystal Bennes & Tom Jeffreys](https://thepenitentreview.com/category/cb-tj/) (17)
- [Featured](https://thepenitentreview.com/category/featured/) (4)
- [Reviews](https://thepenitentreview.com/category/reviews/) (21)
- [Tom Jeffreys](https://thepenitentreview.com/category/tj/) (8) | ||||||||||||||||||
| Readable Markdown | Advertising works. I kept seeing this book everywhereâon social media, in the news, on the shelves at my local bookstore. I like art. Iâm an advocate for feminism, to use bell hooksâs preferred phrase. Surely, Iâd get on well with this book. I bought it and started reading.
Unfortunately, the problems start on pretty much the first page. A short introduction sets out the bookâs aims and models and both are questionable. Thereâs a nod to Linda Nochlinâs famous 1971 essay âWhy Have There Been No Great Women Artists?â, but then we come to what seems to be the real inspiration for this book: E.H. Gombrichâs 1950 *The Story of Art. â*Itâs a wonderful book but for one flawâ, author Katy Hessel writes. The flaw being that Gombrich didnât give a damn about women artists: in the first edition, there were no women and even in editions as late as the sixteenth, that figure only ever tipped to one. Yet rather than reject Gombrichâs âflawed approachâ, Hessel seems to want to recreate it, only this time âbreak down the canonâ and include the women. Wait. What? The canon. As in that outdated and sexist idea of a list of the most important works of art or literature or whatever, usually made up of 100% dead white dudes. I mean, I love (some, but not all) dead white dudes. But thatâs not the kind of feminism Iâm interested in. The fact that Hesselâs project takes for its centre of gravity a concept so deeply rooted in white supremacy and patriarchy speaks to a lack of critical engagement with feminist histories and historiography. For art historian Maura Reilly, ârevising the canon to address the neglect of women and/or minority artists is fundamentally an *impossible* project because such revision does not grapple with the terms that created that neglect in the first placeâ.
I so wanted *The Story of Art Without Men* to be great, but itâs waging war against me on multiple fronts. Firstly, and perhaps most frustratingly, the âcorrectiveâ approach to art history on display here, with its hyped-up narratives of ârediscoveryâ, is underpinned by a regressive girl-boss feminism that basically just wants women to have more shows at Gagosian and sell for more money at Sothebyâs. This is a feminism that superficially gestures in the direction of diversity and inclusivity without understanding the ways in which intersectional frameworks demand fundamentally different ways of doing things. It isnât a feminism that seems interested in imagining a radically more equitable artworld/s for all participants. [Elsewhere](https://www.eriskayconnection.com/home/123-klara-and-the-bomb.html), Iâve written about the problems of the âhidden heroesâ trope or âforgottenâ women. These women artists were never hidden. They were members of families and artistic communities, they had relationships with patrons, collectors, curators and others. Visual culture theorist Ariella Azoulay has also pointed out that a major problem of alternative histories is that they propose âsome things as âhidden historiesâ in need of discovery, \[which are not\] hidden things or histories but rather open secrets known far beyond the archive and the grammar invented as guardian of its orderly usesâ.
Secondly, despite the long parade of names of women artists from the seventeenth century to today, the bookâs politics suck. Without any real sense of self-awareness, *The Story of Art Without Men* enacts a huge erasure of other women. Namely, women (and men) art historians, academics, artists journalists, curators and other art workers. Not a single one of the words written in this 450-page book would have been possible without the vital contribution of the people who have dedicated themselves to the study of the artists mentioned throughout. As far as I can tell, Hesselâs book is not one of original research and scholarship, but a combination of facts cribbed from other academic and popular texts and blog-post casual reflections on her favourite artworks. Despite a brief, generic acknowledgement in the introduction, the work of these (mostly) women has been completely sidelined. Yes, there are limited notes and bibliography at the back of the book, but this is token in comparison to the general erasure and complete absence of those who have done the intellectual work which underpins this book. I also feel that thereâs a complete lack of understanding that constantly promoting the argument that women have been systematically excluded from art history, without any nuance or specificity, in turn acts to erase the last fifty years of feminist art history.
For example, at the end of the two-and-a-half-page section on eighteenth-century Venetian pastellist, Rosalba Carriera, who painted Louis XV and received honorary membership to the AcadĂ©mie Royale, Hessel writes that by the time the French Revolution turned up, Rococo fell from fashion and âfor centuries, Carriera was forgottenâ. The implication being, naturally, that it is thanks to this book that Carriera is being rescued from obscurity. In the notes section, thereâs a link to an article on Christieâs website (from which Hessel seems to have paraphrased), a two-page citation to another recent âwomen artistsâ compilation book, and only one citation to a book actually about Carriera: Angela Obererâs 2020 *The Life and Work of Rosabla Carriera: The Queen of Pastel.* Where is Bernardina Saniâs 2007 catalogue raisonnĂ© (published in Italian)? Or the extensive entry on Carriera by Neil Jeffaresâwho has dedicated his entire career to pastellistsâin his *Dictionary of pastellists before 1800*? Or Julia Dabbâs anthology, *Life Stories of Women Artists 1550-1800* (2009)? Why not mention the early-twentieth-century monograph by Emilie von Hoerschelmann (written in German)? What about the exhibitions of her work in Karlsruhe in 1975 and in Venice in 1994, 1997 and 2007? Or is an artist only forgotten if they arenât being written about in English and exhibited in London and New York?
Similarly, a chapter on quiltmaking opens with the line, âArt historians have overlooked quilting as a key medium for far too longâ. Whenever I see a sentence like that, my first thought is that whoever wrote it probably hasnât taken the time to actually look and see who has been doing the work. If Hessel had taken as much care to respect the work of women intellectuals as she claims to respect women artists, then she might have paid tribute to work done by pioneering Black scholars like Cuesta Benberry who dedicated her professional life to African-American presences in American quilting, or Gladys-Marie Fry, whose 1989 book *Stitched from the Soul: Slave Quilts from the Ante-Bellum South* was one of the first books to look at the role of quilting among enslaved communities in the U.S. Fryâs work demonstrated that it wasnât only African American women who made quilts, but African American men, too, enslaved men among them. The complexities of these and other histories speak loudly as to why the overly-simplistic âinclusion/exclusion paradigmâ (a turn of phrase borrowed from Dr. Kimberly Schreiber) followed by Hessel is completely regressive. Or, as Virginia Wolf put it, âin relation to women writers, you have to leave room to deal with other things besides their work, so much has that work been influenced by conditions that have nothing whatever to do with artâ. When you try to cram 500 years of art history into a single book, with each artist getting no more than a few paragraphs, thereâs simply no way you can address any of Woolfâs âother thingsâ (by which, just to be absolutely clear, I mean, things like class and race, family connections and networks, or caring responsibilities).
Hesselâs blinkered feminism causes other problems, too. Just as the book seems mired in its obsession with rediscovery, the canon and downplaying the contexts and communities in which women worked, so too is there an inability to address difference with a critical eye. Women, here, are flattened into a single entity: artists. Because of this, many of them are celebrated as ârebelsâ or âgame-changersâ and written about in the language of pseudo-feminist hero-worship. Repeating the most sensational aspects of their livesâwhich ironically, almost always feature male, sometimes female, loversâthe book repeats the same soundbites so beloved by publicity departments in big museums and galleries to promote their blockbuster exhibitions of ânewly-discoveredâ women artists. To get big audiences through the doors, and help pay for the expensive solo exhibition, museums hawk their exhibitions of women artists as being about ârediscovered rebelsâ rather than as artists. This is how we come to hear more about Artemisia Gentileschi as a rape victim, Frida Khaloâs tempestuous marriage to Diego Rivera, and Camille Claudel as a woman spurned by Rodin. When we hear or read more about these women in terms of things men did to them than we do of their work as artists or the richness of their lives as women, both aspects are trivialised. And in a book like this, where women artists are flattened into a single entity, there are some alarming instances where uncritically celebrating artists for their sole virtue of being women is more important than taking an informed, critical approach to their output.
A good example is the short section on photographer Diane Arbus. Much revered in the commercial art world, Arbusâs work remains controversial and contested. Yet Hessel either ignores or is ignorant of the fact that there are still many who take issue with Arbusâs portraits of those who she calls âon the âfringesâ of societyâdrag queens, circus performers, strippers, sex workersâ. While you could argue, as plenty have, that Arbus championed normalising representation of marginalised groups, itâs difficult to make the same argument for the images she took of the men and women living in New Jersey residences for developmentally and intellectually disabled people between 1969 and 1971. Following the 2003 release of many of Arbusâs letters and journals, certain voices (Peter Schjeldahl in *The New Yorker*, among others) insisted that Arbus wasnât voyeuristic but empathetic, but such arguments ring hollow to me. Hessel notes that Arbusâs images were controversial in their dayâas if the controversy has come to an endâbut insists, in her ever-positive voice, that they âdocument an unfiltered depiction of a world so often dismissed from art history and sidelined by societyâ.
While the intention of this book is laudable enough, as I tell my students regularly, intention is only one side of any story. *The Story of Art Without Men* presents itself as a radical feminist history of art, but it is far from it. Beyond providing a helpful catalogue of names of womenâs artists, its politics are a problem. It is superficial, lacking in criticality and depth. It perpetuates the erasure of some womenâs work while purporting to celebrate that of others. If youâre looking for feminist art histories about women artists, look to Linda Nochlin and Griselda Pollock, to Kellie Jones and Lisa Gail Collins, to Norma Broude and Mary Garrard. Look anywhere else, but not here. | ||||||||||||||||||
| ML Classification | |||||||||||||||||||
| ML Categories |
Raw JSON{
"/Arts_and_Entertainment": 971,
"/Arts_and_Entertainment/Visual_Art_and_Design": 902,
"/People_and_Society": 417,
"/People_and_Society/Social_Issues_and_Advocacy": 404,
"/People_and_Society/Social_Issues_and_Advocacy/Discrimination_and_Identity_Relations": 395,
"/Arts_and_Entertainment/Visual_Art_and_Design/Art_Museums_and_Galleries": 314
} | ||||||||||||||||||
| ML Page Types |
Raw JSON{
"/Article": 998,
"/Article/Opinion_Piece": 585
} | ||||||||||||||||||
| ML Intent Types |
Raw JSON{
"Informational": 999
} | ||||||||||||||||||
| Content Metadata | |||||||||||||||||||
| Language | en-us | ||||||||||||||||||
| Author | null | ||||||||||||||||||
| Publish Time | not set | ||||||||||||||||||
| Original Publish Time | 2023-03-15 00:00:00 (3 years ago) | ||||||||||||||||||
| Republished | No | ||||||||||||||||||
| Word Count (Total) | 1,990 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Word Count (Content) | 1,801 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Links | |||||||||||||||||||
| External Links | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Internal Links | 20 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Technical SEO | |||||||||||||||||||
| Meta Nofollow | No | ||||||||||||||||||
| Meta Noarchive | No | ||||||||||||||||||
| JS Rendered | No | ||||||||||||||||||
| Redirect Target | null | ||||||||||||||||||
| Performance | |||||||||||||||||||
| Download Time (ms) | 1,987 | ||||||||||||||||||
| TTFB (ms) | 982 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Download Size (bytes) | 19,011 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Shard | 168 (laksa) | ||||||||||||||||||
| Root Hash | 4040727460870904568 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Unparsed URL | com,thepenitentreview!/2023/03/15/katy-hessel-the-story-of-art-without-men/ s443 | ||||||||||||||||||