Curator Interview: Tate Britain's Now You See Us
Spotlighting 400 years of previously-overlooked women artists, we sit down with one of the curators of Tate Britain's latest exhibition...
May 16, 2024
Showing at Tate Britain until 13th October 2024, Now You See Us: Women Artists in Britain 1520-1920 is a monumental show featuring over one hundred artists and spanning four hundred years, unearthing women neglected and forgotten by male-dominated art history. We sat down with Assistant Curator Tim Batchelor at Tate Britain to find out more about the exhibition dubbed by Tate’s Director of Exhibitions and Displays, Andrea Schlieker, as the prequel to the groundbreaking and immensely successful exhibition Women in Revolt which just closed its doors.
Why are records on historic women artists so hard to trace and uncover?
It comes down to the lack of appreciation and value of women’s art; when that happens over centuries, anything that was there becomes lost, degraded, forgotten or overlooked. So when that moment comes when you want to find it, it’s not necessarily there, or you have to dig around so much… or sometimes you have to happen upon something - even in this exhibition so much research went into just trying to find out who the key artists were and what they actually produced, what was said about their works and then… Where are they now? Where can we find them? For many artists it was a real struggle - and we struggled - to find any particular works. For example, Henrietta Rae, in the mid to late Victorian period, was a really well-regarded, successful woman artist in society and the press, exhibiting regularly at the Royal Academy and causing a stir and scandal. Today very few of her works are known to survive and are very hard to get hold of. Some of that stature has been lost over time, it’s quite incredible, simply because prejudices of the 20th century got in the way and they weren’t collected and valued in the same way men were.
Would exceptional talent in an artist guarantee them success despite discrimination?
I think in the case of Henrietta Rae, what she considered her best work has been lost. We tried to find them, but whether they are out there and not known, have been destroyed or are masquerading under another name (which happens a lot to women’s work), we don’t know. Despite their fame, talent and success, it’s not always the case that women artists' best work will be known and survive.
And does that apply to women artists themselves? Are there artists we just don’t know anything about?
Absolutely, there are lots of key names that we came across and we couldn’t find the works to bring them into the exhibition - or the works that do survive are in terrible
condition and we weren’t able to display them. So this is four hundred years and over a hundred artists, with over 220 works but it’s a small snapshot of what else is out there; many of the artists we only have one work on display from them and there could be many others. For each of these hundred artists, only some of them have been well documented like Kauffman for instance.
What sets artists like Kauffman apart? What makes some artists traceable?
Some of them have managed to survive in time in a way that others haven’t because they were so well regarded in their day, but it’s only really Kauffman from the 18th century, and there are a few artists from the 19th century, there really aren’t that many, to be honest. It’s only reallywith people like Gwen John - because they exhibited through the twentieth century -that there is more documentation and things are better recorded. Whereas with earlier works that has not been the case.
In a similar way to the FA banning women’s football after record-breaking attendance, was there an element of men eliminating competition by banning women from art academies and Societies?
While there might have been an element of that, it had more to do with male conceptions of what women could and should do: ‘What is appropriate for a woman to be doing and what are they capable of doing?’. It’s not necessarily about women being in competition but it does come up occasionally…
But for example, the exhibition mentions how, despite watercolour being considered an appropriate medium for women even by the nineteenth century, the Old Watercolour Society admitted only four ‘Lady Members’ and ‘The New’ just ten, and they didn’t even have the same rights as the male members.
I think that primarily comes down to the idea of clubs and societies, which is old boys’ networks, and the coming together of men in this clubbable atmosphere, and the question of how women fit into that male environment and culture. Questions arose like, if women became academy members, who would escort them to the academy dinners? But going back to competition, there was an element of that; we have an artist called Diana Hill who went out to India to paint portraits and the leading male artist out there wrote that he would rather all the male artists came out to India rather than this one woman because he feared the competition so intensely.
How important has it been for women to work together, for instance forming their own clubs, in forging a path for women’s painting?
I think women coming together was really important in the nineteenth century while they were campaigning for their rights and access, mobilising together in force to combat all the barriers and prejudices they were facing in society. This was in parallel to the Suffrage movement beginning in the 1850s/60s and continuing into the early 20th century. It was parallel groups working together across Society.
Do you think women are still underrepresented within our national collections?
I think it is the case that women have been underrepresented for a long time, and the national collections are really aware of this and are taking great steps to address it; certainly at Tate we’ve had strategies in place for many years now to prioritise and focus on
acquired works by women artists. We now have a programme which is equally 50:50 women artists to male artists in the exhibition programme year-by-year. In our recent rehang, we took great steps where we could to increase representation for women artists. It has been the case for a long time, but now there is a greater awareness and a greater attempt to put right that wrong. And in this exhibition, we have recent acquisitions on display for the first time, such as the Louise Jopling.
Is the 50:50 ratio applied to contemporary artists or historic exhibitions as well?
It’s mainly applied to the programme, and so it is primarily considered with the display of twentiethcentury and contemporary artists, since it is more difficult with historic. Putting on a whole exhibition with the work of Henrietta Rae, for instance, would be impossible because they are just not there. We couldn’t do it.
Since historic sources are predominately authored by men how far is it possible to construct a ‘Her Story’ in contrast to a ‘His Story’?
It is the case that art history has primarily been written by men, however there are lots of documents out there by women, we’ve tried to find them; on the wall in front of us here, we have a letter to the press from an anonymous woman, probably Harriet Grote, who was a campaigner at the time for women’s rights, but women’s voices are there. We just need to find them and bring them out more. And that has been done by women art historians over decades such as Pamela Gerrish Nunn and Jan Marsh who are leading women in the field. But much more can and should be done and I hope this exhibition will really prompt that and take it forward.
Today particularly, in the curriculum art and even art history are considered more feminine subjects, what do you think has driven that change?
I think it is the case that art history as a profession, and art colleges, are female-dominated. I don’t know what the root of that is, I’m not sure I could speculate. Maybe it’s just tantamount to the idea that women do have creativity and creative flare and that is an outlet for it.
And, despite these being female-dominated subjects, would you say the art world and art history are still dominated by male figures?
- I think there is a certain amount of that. I'm not sure you could say that of the Tate where we have a female director and a female CEO and other female directors, but there is obviously still an element of that and the battle for women to have opportunities and equal access really continues.
Now You See Us: Women Artists in Britain 1520-1920 is showing at Tate Britain until 13th October.
Showing at Tate Britain until 13th October 2024, Now You See Us: Women Artists in Britain 1520-1920 is a monumental show featuring over one hundred artists and spanning four hundred years, unearthing women neglected and forgotten by male-dominated art history. We sat down with Assistant Curator Tim Batchelor at Tate Britain to find out more about the exhibition dubbed by Tate’s Director of Exhibitions and Displays, Andrea Schlieker, as the prequel to the groundbreaking and immensely successful exhibition Women in Revolt which just closed its doors.
Why are records on historic women artists so hard to trace and uncover?
It comes down to the lack of appreciation and value of women’s art; when that happens over centuries, anything that was there becomes lost, degraded, forgotten or overlooked. So when that moment comes when you want to find it, it’s not necessarily there, or you have to dig around so much… or sometimes you have to happen upon something - even in this exhibition so much research went into just trying to find out who the key artists were and what they actually produced, what was said about their works and then… Where are they now? Where can we find them? For many artists it was a real struggle - and we struggled - to find any particular works. For example, Henrietta Rae, in the mid to late Victorian period, was a really well-regarded, successful woman artist in society and the press, exhibiting regularly at the Royal Academy and causing a stir and scandal. Today very few of her works are known to survive and are very hard to get hold of. Some of that stature has been lost over time, it’s quite incredible, simply because prejudices of the 20th century got in the way and they weren’t collected and valued in the same way men were.
Would exceptional talent in an artist guarantee them success despite discrimination?
I think in the case of Henrietta Rae, what she considered her best work has been lost. We tried to find them, but whether they are out there and not known, have been destroyed or are masquerading under another name (which happens a lot to women’s work), we don’t know. Despite their fame, talent and success, it’s not always the case that women artists' best work will be known and survive.
And does that apply to women artists themselves? Are there artists we just don’t know anything about?
Absolutely, there are lots of key names that we came across and we couldn’t find the works to bring them into the exhibition - or the works that do survive are in terrible
condition and we weren’t able to display them. So this is four hundred years and over a hundred artists, with over 220 works but it’s a small snapshot of what else is out there; many of the artists we only have one work on display from them and there could be many others. For each of these hundred artists, only some of them have been well documented like Kauffman for instance.
What sets artists like Kauffman apart? What makes some artists traceable?
Some of them have managed to survive in time in a way that others haven’t because they were so well regarded in their day, but it’s only really Kauffman from the 18th century, and there are a few artists from the 19th century, there really aren’t that many, to be honest. It’s only reallywith people like Gwen John - because they exhibited through the twentieth century -that there is more documentation and things are better recorded. Whereas with earlier works that has not been the case.
In a similar way to the FA banning women’s football after record-breaking attendance, was there an element of men eliminating competition by banning women from art academies and Societies?
While there might have been an element of that, it had more to do with male conceptions of what women could and should do: ‘What is appropriate for a woman to be doing and what are they capable of doing?’. It’s not necessarily about women being in competition but it does come up occasionally…
But for example, the exhibition mentions how, despite watercolour being considered an appropriate medium for women even by the nineteenth century, the Old Watercolour Society admitted only four ‘Lady Members’ and ‘The New’ just ten, and they didn’t even have the same rights as the male members.
I think that primarily comes down to the idea of clubs and societies, which is old boys’ networks, and the coming together of men in this clubbable atmosphere, and the question of how women fit into that male environment and culture. Questions arose like, if women became academy members, who would escort them to the academy dinners? But going back to competition, there was an element of that; we have an artist called Diana Hill who went out to India to paint portraits and the leading male artist out there wrote that he would rather all the male artists came out to India rather than this one woman because he feared the competition so intensely.
How important has it been for women to work together, for instance forming their own clubs, in forging a path for women’s painting?
I think women coming together was really important in the nineteenth century while they were campaigning for their rights and access, mobilising together in force to combat all the barriers and prejudices they were facing in society. This was in parallel to the Suffrage movement beginning in the 1850s/60s and continuing into the early 20th century. It was parallel groups working together across Society.
Do you think women are still underrepresented within our national collections?
I think it is the case that women have been underrepresented for a long time, and the national collections are really aware of this and are taking great steps to address it; certainly at Tate we’ve had strategies in place for many years now to prioritise and focus on
acquired works by women artists. We now have a programme which is equally 50:50 women artists to male artists in the exhibition programme year-by-year. In our recent rehang, we took great steps where we could to increase representation for women artists. It has been the case for a long time, but now there is a greater awareness and a greater attempt to put right that wrong. And in this exhibition, we have recent acquisitions on display for the first time, such as the Louise Jopling.
Is the 50:50 ratio applied to contemporary artists or historic exhibitions as well?
It’s mainly applied to the programme, and so it is primarily considered with the display of twentiethcentury and contemporary artists, since it is more difficult with historic. Putting on a whole exhibition with the work of Henrietta Rae, for instance, would be impossible because they are just not there. We couldn’t do it.
Since historic sources are predominately authored by men how far is it possible to construct a ‘Her Story’ in contrast to a ‘His Story’?
It is the case that art history has primarily been written by men, however there are lots of documents out there by women, we’ve tried to find them; on the wall in front of us here, we have a letter to the press from an anonymous woman, probably Harriet Grote, who was a campaigner at the time for women’s rights, but women’s voices are there. We just need to find them and bring them out more. And that has been done by women art historians over decades such as Pamela Gerrish Nunn and Jan Marsh who are leading women in the field. But much more can and should be done and I hope this exhibition will really prompt that and take it forward.
Today particularly, in the curriculum art and even art history are considered more feminine subjects, what do you think has driven that change?
I think it is the case that art history as a profession, and art colleges, are female-dominated. I don’t know what the root of that is, I’m not sure I could speculate. Maybe it’s just tantamount to the idea that women do have creativity and creative flare and that is an outlet for it.
And, despite these being female-dominated subjects, would you say the art world and art history are still dominated by male figures?
- I think there is a certain amount of that. I'm not sure you could say that of the Tate where we have a female director and a female CEO and other female directors, but there is obviously still an element of that and the battle for women to have opportunities and equal access really continues.
Now You See Us: Women Artists in Britain 1520-1920 is showing at Tate Britain until 13th October.
Showing at Tate Britain until 13th October 2024, Now You See Us: Women Artists in Britain 1520-1920 is a monumental show featuring over one hundred artists and spanning four hundred years, unearthing women neglected and forgotten by male-dominated art history. We sat down with Assistant Curator Tim Batchelor at Tate Britain to find out more about the exhibition dubbed by Tate’s Director of Exhibitions and Displays, Andrea Schlieker, as the prequel to the groundbreaking and immensely successful exhibition Women in Revolt which just closed its doors.
Why are records on historic women artists so hard to trace and uncover?
It comes down to the lack of appreciation and value of women’s art; when that happens over centuries, anything that was there becomes lost, degraded, forgotten or overlooked. So when that moment comes when you want to find it, it’s not necessarily there, or you have to dig around so much… or sometimes you have to happen upon something - even in this exhibition so much research went into just trying to find out who the key artists were and what they actually produced, what was said about their works and then… Where are they now? Where can we find them? For many artists it was a real struggle - and we struggled - to find any particular works. For example, Henrietta Rae, in the mid to late Victorian period, was a really well-regarded, successful woman artist in society and the press, exhibiting regularly at the Royal Academy and causing a stir and scandal. Today very few of her works are known to survive and are very hard to get hold of. Some of that stature has been lost over time, it’s quite incredible, simply because prejudices of the 20th century got in the way and they weren’t collected and valued in the same way men were.
Would exceptional talent in an artist guarantee them success despite discrimination?
I think in the case of Henrietta Rae, what she considered her best work has been lost. We tried to find them, but whether they are out there and not known, have been destroyed or are masquerading under another name (which happens a lot to women’s work), we don’t know. Despite their fame, talent and success, it’s not always the case that women artists' best work will be known and survive.
And does that apply to women artists themselves? Are there artists we just don’t know anything about?
Absolutely, there are lots of key names that we came across and we couldn’t find the works to bring them into the exhibition - or the works that do survive are in terrible
condition and we weren’t able to display them. So this is four hundred years and over a hundred artists, with over 220 works but it’s a small snapshot of what else is out there; many of the artists we only have one work on display from them and there could be many others. For each of these hundred artists, only some of them have been well documented like Kauffman for instance.
What sets artists like Kauffman apart? What makes some artists traceable?
Some of them have managed to survive in time in a way that others haven’t because they were so well regarded in their day, but it’s only really Kauffman from the 18th century, and there are a few artists from the 19th century, there really aren’t that many, to be honest. It’s only reallywith people like Gwen John - because they exhibited through the twentieth century -that there is more documentation and things are better recorded. Whereas with earlier works that has not been the case.
In a similar way to the FA banning women’s football after record-breaking attendance, was there an element of men eliminating competition by banning women from art academies and Societies?
While there might have been an element of that, it had more to do with male conceptions of what women could and should do: ‘What is appropriate for a woman to be doing and what are they capable of doing?’. It’s not necessarily about women being in competition but it does come up occasionally…
But for example, the exhibition mentions how, despite watercolour being considered an appropriate medium for women even by the nineteenth century, the Old Watercolour Society admitted only four ‘Lady Members’ and ‘The New’ just ten, and they didn’t even have the same rights as the male members.
I think that primarily comes down to the idea of clubs and societies, which is old boys’ networks, and the coming together of men in this clubbable atmosphere, and the question of how women fit into that male environment and culture. Questions arose like, if women became academy members, who would escort them to the academy dinners? But going back to competition, there was an element of that; we have an artist called Diana Hill who went out to India to paint portraits and the leading male artist out there wrote that he would rather all the male artists came out to India rather than this one woman because he feared the competition so intensely.
How important has it been for women to work together, for instance forming their own clubs, in forging a path for women’s painting?
I think women coming together was really important in the nineteenth century while they were campaigning for their rights and access, mobilising together in force to combat all the barriers and prejudices they were facing in society. This was in parallel to the Suffrage movement beginning in the 1850s/60s and continuing into the early 20th century. It was parallel groups working together across Society.
Do you think women are still underrepresented within our national collections?
I think it is the case that women have been underrepresented for a long time, and the national collections are really aware of this and are taking great steps to address it; certainly at Tate we’ve had strategies in place for many years now to prioritise and focus on
acquired works by women artists. We now have a programme which is equally 50:50 women artists to male artists in the exhibition programme year-by-year. In our recent rehang, we took great steps where we could to increase representation for women artists. It has been the case for a long time, but now there is a greater awareness and a greater attempt to put right that wrong. And in this exhibition, we have recent acquisitions on display for the first time, such as the Louise Jopling.
Is the 50:50 ratio applied to contemporary artists or historic exhibitions as well?
It’s mainly applied to the programme, and so it is primarily considered with the display of twentiethcentury and contemporary artists, since it is more difficult with historic. Putting on a whole exhibition with the work of Henrietta Rae, for instance, would be impossible because they are just not there. We couldn’t do it.
Since historic sources are predominately authored by men how far is it possible to construct a ‘Her Story’ in contrast to a ‘His Story’?
It is the case that art history has primarily been written by men, however there are lots of documents out there by women, we’ve tried to find them; on the wall in front of us here, we have a letter to the press from an anonymous woman, probably Harriet Grote, who was a campaigner at the time for women’s rights, but women’s voices are there. We just need to find them and bring them out more. And that has been done by women art historians over decades such as Pamela Gerrish Nunn and Jan Marsh who are leading women in the field. But much more can and should be done and I hope this exhibition will really prompt that and take it forward.
Today particularly, in the curriculum art and even art history are considered more feminine subjects, what do you think has driven that change?
I think it is the case that art history as a profession, and art colleges, are female-dominated. I don’t know what the root of that is, I’m not sure I could speculate. Maybe it’s just tantamount to the idea that women do have creativity and creative flare and that is an outlet for it.
And, despite these being female-dominated subjects, would you say the art world and art history are still dominated by male figures?
- I think there is a certain amount of that. I'm not sure you could say that of the Tate where we have a female director and a female CEO and other female directors, but there is obviously still an element of that and the battle for women to have opportunities and equal access really continues.
Now You See Us: Women Artists in Britain 1520-1920 is showing at Tate Britain until 13th October.
Showing at Tate Britain until 13th October 2024, Now You See Us: Women Artists in Britain 1520-1920 is a monumental show featuring over one hundred artists and spanning four hundred years, unearthing women neglected and forgotten by male-dominated art history. We sat down with Assistant Curator Tim Batchelor at Tate Britain to find out more about the exhibition dubbed by Tate’s Director of Exhibitions and Displays, Andrea Schlieker, as the prequel to the groundbreaking and immensely successful exhibition Women in Revolt which just closed its doors.
Why are records on historic women artists so hard to trace and uncover?
It comes down to the lack of appreciation and value of women’s art; when that happens over centuries, anything that was there becomes lost, degraded, forgotten or overlooked. So when that moment comes when you want to find it, it’s not necessarily there, or you have to dig around so much… or sometimes you have to happen upon something - even in this exhibition so much research went into just trying to find out who the key artists were and what they actually produced, what was said about their works and then… Where are they now? Where can we find them? For many artists it was a real struggle - and we struggled - to find any particular works. For example, Henrietta Rae, in the mid to late Victorian period, was a really well-regarded, successful woman artist in society and the press, exhibiting regularly at the Royal Academy and causing a stir and scandal. Today very few of her works are known to survive and are very hard to get hold of. Some of that stature has been lost over time, it’s quite incredible, simply because prejudices of the 20th century got in the way and they weren’t collected and valued in the same way men were.
Would exceptional talent in an artist guarantee them success despite discrimination?
I think in the case of Henrietta Rae, what she considered her best work has been lost. We tried to find them, but whether they are out there and not known, have been destroyed or are masquerading under another name (which happens a lot to women’s work), we don’t know. Despite their fame, talent and success, it’s not always the case that women artists' best work will be known and survive.
And does that apply to women artists themselves? Are there artists we just don’t know anything about?
Absolutely, there are lots of key names that we came across and we couldn’t find the works to bring them into the exhibition - or the works that do survive are in terrible
condition and we weren’t able to display them. So this is four hundred years and over a hundred artists, with over 220 works but it’s a small snapshot of what else is out there; many of the artists we only have one work on display from them and there could be many others. For each of these hundred artists, only some of them have been well documented like Kauffman for instance.
What sets artists like Kauffman apart? What makes some artists traceable?
Some of them have managed to survive in time in a way that others haven’t because they were so well regarded in their day, but it’s only really Kauffman from the 18th century, and there are a few artists from the 19th century, there really aren’t that many, to be honest. It’s only reallywith people like Gwen John - because they exhibited through the twentieth century -that there is more documentation and things are better recorded. Whereas with earlier works that has not been the case.
In a similar way to the FA banning women’s football after record-breaking attendance, was there an element of men eliminating competition by banning women from art academies and Societies?
While there might have been an element of that, it had more to do with male conceptions of what women could and should do: ‘What is appropriate for a woman to be doing and what are they capable of doing?’. It’s not necessarily about women being in competition but it does come up occasionally…
But for example, the exhibition mentions how, despite watercolour being considered an appropriate medium for women even by the nineteenth century, the Old Watercolour Society admitted only four ‘Lady Members’ and ‘The New’ just ten, and they didn’t even have the same rights as the male members.
I think that primarily comes down to the idea of clubs and societies, which is old boys’ networks, and the coming together of men in this clubbable atmosphere, and the question of how women fit into that male environment and culture. Questions arose like, if women became academy members, who would escort them to the academy dinners? But going back to competition, there was an element of that; we have an artist called Diana Hill who went out to India to paint portraits and the leading male artist out there wrote that he would rather all the male artists came out to India rather than this one woman because he feared the competition so intensely.
How important has it been for women to work together, for instance forming their own clubs, in forging a path for women’s painting?
I think women coming together was really important in the nineteenth century while they were campaigning for their rights and access, mobilising together in force to combat all the barriers and prejudices they were facing in society. This was in parallel to the Suffrage movement beginning in the 1850s/60s and continuing into the early 20th century. It was parallel groups working together across Society.
Do you think women are still underrepresented within our national collections?
I think it is the case that women have been underrepresented for a long time, and the national collections are really aware of this and are taking great steps to address it; certainly at Tate we’ve had strategies in place for many years now to prioritise and focus on
acquired works by women artists. We now have a programme which is equally 50:50 women artists to male artists in the exhibition programme year-by-year. In our recent rehang, we took great steps where we could to increase representation for women artists. It has been the case for a long time, but now there is a greater awareness and a greater attempt to put right that wrong. And in this exhibition, we have recent acquisitions on display for the first time, such as the Louise Jopling.
Is the 50:50 ratio applied to contemporary artists or historic exhibitions as well?
It’s mainly applied to the programme, and so it is primarily considered with the display of twentiethcentury and contemporary artists, since it is more difficult with historic. Putting on a whole exhibition with the work of Henrietta Rae, for instance, would be impossible because they are just not there. We couldn’t do it.
Since historic sources are predominately authored by men how far is it possible to construct a ‘Her Story’ in contrast to a ‘His Story’?
It is the case that art history has primarily been written by men, however there are lots of documents out there by women, we’ve tried to find them; on the wall in front of us here, we have a letter to the press from an anonymous woman, probably Harriet Grote, who was a campaigner at the time for women’s rights, but women’s voices are there. We just need to find them and bring them out more. And that has been done by women art historians over decades such as Pamela Gerrish Nunn and Jan Marsh who are leading women in the field. But much more can and should be done and I hope this exhibition will really prompt that and take it forward.
Today particularly, in the curriculum art and even art history are considered more feminine subjects, what do you think has driven that change?
I think it is the case that art history as a profession, and art colleges, are female-dominated. I don’t know what the root of that is, I’m not sure I could speculate. Maybe it’s just tantamount to the idea that women do have creativity and creative flare and that is an outlet for it.
And, despite these being female-dominated subjects, would you say the art world and art history are still dominated by male figures?
- I think there is a certain amount of that. I'm not sure you could say that of the Tate where we have a female director and a female CEO and other female directors, but there is obviously still an element of that and the battle for women to have opportunities and equal access really continues.
Now You See Us: Women Artists in Britain 1520-1920 is showing at Tate Britain until 13th October.
Showing at Tate Britain until 13th October 2024, Now You See Us: Women Artists in Britain 1520-1920 is a monumental show featuring over one hundred artists and spanning four hundred years, unearthing women neglected and forgotten by male-dominated art history. We sat down with Assistant Curator Tim Batchelor at Tate Britain to find out more about the exhibition dubbed by Tate’s Director of Exhibitions and Displays, Andrea Schlieker, as the prequel to the groundbreaking and immensely successful exhibition Women in Revolt which just closed its doors.
Why are records on historic women artists so hard to trace and uncover?
It comes down to the lack of appreciation and value of women’s art; when that happens over centuries, anything that was there becomes lost, degraded, forgotten or overlooked. So when that moment comes when you want to find it, it’s not necessarily there, or you have to dig around so much… or sometimes you have to happen upon something - even in this exhibition so much research went into just trying to find out who the key artists were and what they actually produced, what was said about their works and then… Where are they now? Where can we find them? For many artists it was a real struggle - and we struggled - to find any particular works. For example, Henrietta Rae, in the mid to late Victorian period, was a really well-regarded, successful woman artist in society and the press, exhibiting regularly at the Royal Academy and causing a stir and scandal. Today very few of her works are known to survive and are very hard to get hold of. Some of that stature has been lost over time, it’s quite incredible, simply because prejudices of the 20th century got in the way and they weren’t collected and valued in the same way men were.
Would exceptional talent in an artist guarantee them success despite discrimination?
I think in the case of Henrietta Rae, what she considered her best work has been lost. We tried to find them, but whether they are out there and not known, have been destroyed or are masquerading under another name (which happens a lot to women’s work), we don’t know. Despite their fame, talent and success, it’s not always the case that women artists' best work will be known and survive.
And does that apply to women artists themselves? Are there artists we just don’t know anything about?
Absolutely, there are lots of key names that we came across and we couldn’t find the works to bring them into the exhibition - or the works that do survive are in terrible
condition and we weren’t able to display them. So this is four hundred years and over a hundred artists, with over 220 works but it’s a small snapshot of what else is out there; many of the artists we only have one work on display from them and there could be many others. For each of these hundred artists, only some of them have been well documented like Kauffman for instance.
What sets artists like Kauffman apart? What makes some artists traceable?
Some of them have managed to survive in time in a way that others haven’t because they were so well regarded in their day, but it’s only really Kauffman from the 18th century, and there are a few artists from the 19th century, there really aren’t that many, to be honest. It’s only reallywith people like Gwen John - because they exhibited through the twentieth century -that there is more documentation and things are better recorded. Whereas with earlier works that has not been the case.
In a similar way to the FA banning women’s football after record-breaking attendance, was there an element of men eliminating competition by banning women from art academies and Societies?
While there might have been an element of that, it had more to do with male conceptions of what women could and should do: ‘What is appropriate for a woman to be doing and what are they capable of doing?’. It’s not necessarily about women being in competition but it does come up occasionally…
But for example, the exhibition mentions how, despite watercolour being considered an appropriate medium for women even by the nineteenth century, the Old Watercolour Society admitted only four ‘Lady Members’ and ‘The New’ just ten, and they didn’t even have the same rights as the male members.
I think that primarily comes down to the idea of clubs and societies, which is old boys’ networks, and the coming together of men in this clubbable atmosphere, and the question of how women fit into that male environment and culture. Questions arose like, if women became academy members, who would escort them to the academy dinners? But going back to competition, there was an element of that; we have an artist called Diana Hill who went out to India to paint portraits and the leading male artist out there wrote that he would rather all the male artists came out to India rather than this one woman because he feared the competition so intensely.
How important has it been for women to work together, for instance forming their own clubs, in forging a path for women’s painting?
I think women coming together was really important in the nineteenth century while they were campaigning for their rights and access, mobilising together in force to combat all the barriers and prejudices they were facing in society. This was in parallel to the Suffrage movement beginning in the 1850s/60s and continuing into the early 20th century. It was parallel groups working together across Society.
Do you think women are still underrepresented within our national collections?
I think it is the case that women have been underrepresented for a long time, and the national collections are really aware of this and are taking great steps to address it; certainly at Tate we’ve had strategies in place for many years now to prioritise and focus on
acquired works by women artists. We now have a programme which is equally 50:50 women artists to male artists in the exhibition programme year-by-year. In our recent rehang, we took great steps where we could to increase representation for women artists. It has been the case for a long time, but now there is a greater awareness and a greater attempt to put right that wrong. And in this exhibition, we have recent acquisitions on display for the first time, such as the Louise Jopling.
Is the 50:50 ratio applied to contemporary artists or historic exhibitions as well?
It’s mainly applied to the programme, and so it is primarily considered with the display of twentiethcentury and contemporary artists, since it is more difficult with historic. Putting on a whole exhibition with the work of Henrietta Rae, for instance, would be impossible because they are just not there. We couldn’t do it.
Since historic sources are predominately authored by men how far is it possible to construct a ‘Her Story’ in contrast to a ‘His Story’?
It is the case that art history has primarily been written by men, however there are lots of documents out there by women, we’ve tried to find them; on the wall in front of us here, we have a letter to the press from an anonymous woman, probably Harriet Grote, who was a campaigner at the time for women’s rights, but women’s voices are there. We just need to find them and bring them out more. And that has been done by women art historians over decades such as Pamela Gerrish Nunn and Jan Marsh who are leading women in the field. But much more can and should be done and I hope this exhibition will really prompt that and take it forward.
Today particularly, in the curriculum art and even art history are considered more feminine subjects, what do you think has driven that change?
I think it is the case that art history as a profession, and art colleges, are female-dominated. I don’t know what the root of that is, I’m not sure I could speculate. Maybe it’s just tantamount to the idea that women do have creativity and creative flare and that is an outlet for it.
And, despite these being female-dominated subjects, would you say the art world and art history are still dominated by male figures?
- I think there is a certain amount of that. I'm not sure you could say that of the Tate where we have a female director and a female CEO and other female directors, but there is obviously still an element of that and the battle for women to have opportunities and equal access really continues.
Now You See Us: Women Artists in Britain 1520-1920 is showing at Tate Britain until 13th October.
Showing at Tate Britain until 13th October 2024, Now You See Us: Women Artists in Britain 1520-1920 is a monumental show featuring over one hundred artists and spanning four hundred years, unearthing women neglected and forgotten by male-dominated art history. We sat down with Assistant Curator Tim Batchelor at Tate Britain to find out more about the exhibition dubbed by Tate’s Director of Exhibitions and Displays, Andrea Schlieker, as the prequel to the groundbreaking and immensely successful exhibition Women in Revolt which just closed its doors.
Why are records on historic women artists so hard to trace and uncover?
It comes down to the lack of appreciation and value of women’s art; when that happens over centuries, anything that was there becomes lost, degraded, forgotten or overlooked. So when that moment comes when you want to find it, it’s not necessarily there, or you have to dig around so much… or sometimes you have to happen upon something - even in this exhibition so much research went into just trying to find out who the key artists were and what they actually produced, what was said about their works and then… Where are they now? Where can we find them? For many artists it was a real struggle - and we struggled - to find any particular works. For example, Henrietta Rae, in the mid to late Victorian period, was a really well-regarded, successful woman artist in society and the press, exhibiting regularly at the Royal Academy and causing a stir and scandal. Today very few of her works are known to survive and are very hard to get hold of. Some of that stature has been lost over time, it’s quite incredible, simply because prejudices of the 20th century got in the way and they weren’t collected and valued in the same way men were.
Would exceptional talent in an artist guarantee them success despite discrimination?
I think in the case of Henrietta Rae, what she considered her best work has been lost. We tried to find them, but whether they are out there and not known, have been destroyed or are masquerading under another name (which happens a lot to women’s work), we don’t know. Despite their fame, talent and success, it’s not always the case that women artists' best work will be known and survive.
And does that apply to women artists themselves? Are there artists we just don’t know anything about?
Absolutely, there are lots of key names that we came across and we couldn’t find the works to bring them into the exhibition - or the works that do survive are in terrible
condition and we weren’t able to display them. So this is four hundred years and over a hundred artists, with over 220 works but it’s a small snapshot of what else is out there; many of the artists we only have one work on display from them and there could be many others. For each of these hundred artists, only some of them have been well documented like Kauffman for instance.
What sets artists like Kauffman apart? What makes some artists traceable?
Some of them have managed to survive in time in a way that others haven’t because they were so well regarded in their day, but it’s only really Kauffman from the 18th century, and there are a few artists from the 19th century, there really aren’t that many, to be honest. It’s only reallywith people like Gwen John - because they exhibited through the twentieth century -that there is more documentation and things are better recorded. Whereas with earlier works that has not been the case.
In a similar way to the FA banning women’s football after record-breaking attendance, was there an element of men eliminating competition by banning women from art academies and Societies?
While there might have been an element of that, it had more to do with male conceptions of what women could and should do: ‘What is appropriate for a woman to be doing and what are they capable of doing?’. It’s not necessarily about women being in competition but it does come up occasionally…
But for example, the exhibition mentions how, despite watercolour being considered an appropriate medium for women even by the nineteenth century, the Old Watercolour Society admitted only four ‘Lady Members’ and ‘The New’ just ten, and they didn’t even have the same rights as the male members.
I think that primarily comes down to the idea of clubs and societies, which is old boys’ networks, and the coming together of men in this clubbable atmosphere, and the question of how women fit into that male environment and culture. Questions arose like, if women became academy members, who would escort them to the academy dinners? But going back to competition, there was an element of that; we have an artist called Diana Hill who went out to India to paint portraits and the leading male artist out there wrote that he would rather all the male artists came out to India rather than this one woman because he feared the competition so intensely.
How important has it been for women to work together, for instance forming their own clubs, in forging a path for women’s painting?
I think women coming together was really important in the nineteenth century while they were campaigning for their rights and access, mobilising together in force to combat all the barriers and prejudices they were facing in society. This was in parallel to the Suffrage movement beginning in the 1850s/60s and continuing into the early 20th century. It was parallel groups working together across Society.
Do you think women are still underrepresented within our national collections?
I think it is the case that women have been underrepresented for a long time, and the national collections are really aware of this and are taking great steps to address it; certainly at Tate we’ve had strategies in place for many years now to prioritise and focus on
acquired works by women artists. We now have a programme which is equally 50:50 women artists to male artists in the exhibition programme year-by-year. In our recent rehang, we took great steps where we could to increase representation for women artists. It has been the case for a long time, but now there is a greater awareness and a greater attempt to put right that wrong. And in this exhibition, we have recent acquisitions on display for the first time, such as the Louise Jopling.
Is the 50:50 ratio applied to contemporary artists or historic exhibitions as well?
It’s mainly applied to the programme, and so it is primarily considered with the display of twentiethcentury and contemporary artists, since it is more difficult with historic. Putting on a whole exhibition with the work of Henrietta Rae, for instance, would be impossible because they are just not there. We couldn’t do it.
Since historic sources are predominately authored by men how far is it possible to construct a ‘Her Story’ in contrast to a ‘His Story’?
It is the case that art history has primarily been written by men, however there are lots of documents out there by women, we’ve tried to find them; on the wall in front of us here, we have a letter to the press from an anonymous woman, probably Harriet Grote, who was a campaigner at the time for women’s rights, but women’s voices are there. We just need to find them and bring them out more. And that has been done by women art historians over decades such as Pamela Gerrish Nunn and Jan Marsh who are leading women in the field. But much more can and should be done and I hope this exhibition will really prompt that and take it forward.
Today particularly, in the curriculum art and even art history are considered more feminine subjects, what do you think has driven that change?
I think it is the case that art history as a profession, and art colleges, are female-dominated. I don’t know what the root of that is, I’m not sure I could speculate. Maybe it’s just tantamount to the idea that women do have creativity and creative flare and that is an outlet for it.
And, despite these being female-dominated subjects, would you say the art world and art history are still dominated by male figures?
- I think there is a certain amount of that. I'm not sure you could say that of the Tate where we have a female director and a female CEO and other female directors, but there is obviously still an element of that and the battle for women to have opportunities and equal access really continues.
Now You See Us: Women Artists in Britain 1520-1920 is showing at Tate Britain until 13th October.
Showing at Tate Britain until 13th October 2024, Now You See Us: Women Artists in Britain 1520-1920 is a monumental show featuring over one hundred artists and spanning four hundred years, unearthing women neglected and forgotten by male-dominated art history. We sat down with Assistant Curator Tim Batchelor at Tate Britain to find out more about the exhibition dubbed by Tate’s Director of Exhibitions and Displays, Andrea Schlieker, as the prequel to the groundbreaking and immensely successful exhibition Women in Revolt which just closed its doors.
Why are records on historic women artists so hard to trace and uncover?
It comes down to the lack of appreciation and value of women’s art; when that happens over centuries, anything that was there becomes lost, degraded, forgotten or overlooked. So when that moment comes when you want to find it, it’s not necessarily there, or you have to dig around so much… or sometimes you have to happen upon something - even in this exhibition so much research went into just trying to find out who the key artists were and what they actually produced, what was said about their works and then… Where are they now? Where can we find them? For many artists it was a real struggle - and we struggled - to find any particular works. For example, Henrietta Rae, in the mid to late Victorian period, was a really well-regarded, successful woman artist in society and the press, exhibiting regularly at the Royal Academy and causing a stir and scandal. Today very few of her works are known to survive and are very hard to get hold of. Some of that stature has been lost over time, it’s quite incredible, simply because prejudices of the 20th century got in the way and they weren’t collected and valued in the same way men were.
Would exceptional talent in an artist guarantee them success despite discrimination?
I think in the case of Henrietta Rae, what she considered her best work has been lost. We tried to find them, but whether they are out there and not known, have been destroyed or are masquerading under another name (which happens a lot to women’s work), we don’t know. Despite their fame, talent and success, it’s not always the case that women artists' best work will be known and survive.
And does that apply to women artists themselves? Are there artists we just don’t know anything about?
Absolutely, there are lots of key names that we came across and we couldn’t find the works to bring them into the exhibition - or the works that do survive are in terrible
condition and we weren’t able to display them. So this is four hundred years and over a hundred artists, with over 220 works but it’s a small snapshot of what else is out there; many of the artists we only have one work on display from them and there could be many others. For each of these hundred artists, only some of them have been well documented like Kauffman for instance.
What sets artists like Kauffman apart? What makes some artists traceable?
Some of them have managed to survive in time in a way that others haven’t because they were so well regarded in their day, but it’s only really Kauffman from the 18th century, and there are a few artists from the 19th century, there really aren’t that many, to be honest. It’s only reallywith people like Gwen John - because they exhibited through the twentieth century -that there is more documentation and things are better recorded. Whereas with earlier works that has not been the case.
In a similar way to the FA banning women’s football after record-breaking attendance, was there an element of men eliminating competition by banning women from art academies and Societies?
While there might have been an element of that, it had more to do with male conceptions of what women could and should do: ‘What is appropriate for a woman to be doing and what are they capable of doing?’. It’s not necessarily about women being in competition but it does come up occasionally…
But for example, the exhibition mentions how, despite watercolour being considered an appropriate medium for women even by the nineteenth century, the Old Watercolour Society admitted only four ‘Lady Members’ and ‘The New’ just ten, and they didn’t even have the same rights as the male members.
I think that primarily comes down to the idea of clubs and societies, which is old boys’ networks, and the coming together of men in this clubbable atmosphere, and the question of how women fit into that male environment and culture. Questions arose like, if women became academy members, who would escort them to the academy dinners? But going back to competition, there was an element of that; we have an artist called Diana Hill who went out to India to paint portraits and the leading male artist out there wrote that he would rather all the male artists came out to India rather than this one woman because he feared the competition so intensely.
How important has it been for women to work together, for instance forming their own clubs, in forging a path for women’s painting?
I think women coming together was really important in the nineteenth century while they were campaigning for their rights and access, mobilising together in force to combat all the barriers and prejudices they were facing in society. This was in parallel to the Suffrage movement beginning in the 1850s/60s and continuing into the early 20th century. It was parallel groups working together across Society.
Do you think women are still underrepresented within our national collections?
I think it is the case that women have been underrepresented for a long time, and the national collections are really aware of this and are taking great steps to address it; certainly at Tate we’ve had strategies in place for many years now to prioritise and focus on
acquired works by women artists. We now have a programme which is equally 50:50 women artists to male artists in the exhibition programme year-by-year. In our recent rehang, we took great steps where we could to increase representation for women artists. It has been the case for a long time, but now there is a greater awareness and a greater attempt to put right that wrong. And in this exhibition, we have recent acquisitions on display for the first time, such as the Louise Jopling.
Is the 50:50 ratio applied to contemporary artists or historic exhibitions as well?
It’s mainly applied to the programme, and so it is primarily considered with the display of twentiethcentury and contemporary artists, since it is more difficult with historic. Putting on a whole exhibition with the work of Henrietta Rae, for instance, would be impossible because they are just not there. We couldn’t do it.
Since historic sources are predominately authored by men how far is it possible to construct a ‘Her Story’ in contrast to a ‘His Story’?
It is the case that art history has primarily been written by men, however there are lots of documents out there by women, we’ve tried to find them; on the wall in front of us here, we have a letter to the press from an anonymous woman, probably Harriet Grote, who was a campaigner at the time for women’s rights, but women’s voices are there. We just need to find them and bring them out more. And that has been done by women art historians over decades such as Pamela Gerrish Nunn and Jan Marsh who are leading women in the field. But much more can and should be done and I hope this exhibition will really prompt that and take it forward.
Today particularly, in the curriculum art and even art history are considered more feminine subjects, what do you think has driven that change?
I think it is the case that art history as a profession, and art colleges, are female-dominated. I don’t know what the root of that is, I’m not sure I could speculate. Maybe it’s just tantamount to the idea that women do have creativity and creative flare and that is an outlet for it.
And, despite these being female-dominated subjects, would you say the art world and art history are still dominated by male figures?
- I think there is a certain amount of that. I'm not sure you could say that of the Tate where we have a female director and a female CEO and other female directors, but there is obviously still an element of that and the battle for women to have opportunities and equal access really continues.
Now You See Us: Women Artists in Britain 1520-1920 is showing at Tate Britain until 13th October.
Showing at Tate Britain until 13th October 2024, Now You See Us: Women Artists in Britain 1520-1920 is a monumental show featuring over one hundred artists and spanning four hundred years, unearthing women neglected and forgotten by male-dominated art history. We sat down with Assistant Curator Tim Batchelor at Tate Britain to find out more about the exhibition dubbed by Tate’s Director of Exhibitions and Displays, Andrea Schlieker, as the prequel to the groundbreaking and immensely successful exhibition Women in Revolt which just closed its doors.
Why are records on historic women artists so hard to trace and uncover?
It comes down to the lack of appreciation and value of women’s art; when that happens over centuries, anything that was there becomes lost, degraded, forgotten or overlooked. So when that moment comes when you want to find it, it’s not necessarily there, or you have to dig around so much… or sometimes you have to happen upon something - even in this exhibition so much research went into just trying to find out who the key artists were and what they actually produced, what was said about their works and then… Where are they now? Where can we find them? For many artists it was a real struggle - and we struggled - to find any particular works. For example, Henrietta Rae, in the mid to late Victorian period, was a really well-regarded, successful woman artist in society and the press, exhibiting regularly at the Royal Academy and causing a stir and scandal. Today very few of her works are known to survive and are very hard to get hold of. Some of that stature has been lost over time, it’s quite incredible, simply because prejudices of the 20th century got in the way and they weren’t collected and valued in the same way men were.
Would exceptional talent in an artist guarantee them success despite discrimination?
I think in the case of Henrietta Rae, what she considered her best work has been lost. We tried to find them, but whether they are out there and not known, have been destroyed or are masquerading under another name (which happens a lot to women’s work), we don’t know. Despite their fame, talent and success, it’s not always the case that women artists' best work will be known and survive.
And does that apply to women artists themselves? Are there artists we just don’t know anything about?
Absolutely, there are lots of key names that we came across and we couldn’t find the works to bring them into the exhibition - or the works that do survive are in terrible
condition and we weren’t able to display them. So this is four hundred years and over a hundred artists, with over 220 works but it’s a small snapshot of what else is out there; many of the artists we only have one work on display from them and there could be many others. For each of these hundred artists, only some of them have been well documented like Kauffman for instance.
What sets artists like Kauffman apart? What makes some artists traceable?
Some of them have managed to survive in time in a way that others haven’t because they were so well regarded in their day, but it’s only really Kauffman from the 18th century, and there are a few artists from the 19th century, there really aren’t that many, to be honest. It’s only reallywith people like Gwen John - because they exhibited through the twentieth century -that there is more documentation and things are better recorded. Whereas with earlier works that has not been the case.
In a similar way to the FA banning women’s football after record-breaking attendance, was there an element of men eliminating competition by banning women from art academies and Societies?
While there might have been an element of that, it had more to do with male conceptions of what women could and should do: ‘What is appropriate for a woman to be doing and what are they capable of doing?’. It’s not necessarily about women being in competition but it does come up occasionally…
But for example, the exhibition mentions how, despite watercolour being considered an appropriate medium for women even by the nineteenth century, the Old Watercolour Society admitted only four ‘Lady Members’ and ‘The New’ just ten, and they didn’t even have the same rights as the male members.
I think that primarily comes down to the idea of clubs and societies, which is old boys’ networks, and the coming together of men in this clubbable atmosphere, and the question of how women fit into that male environment and culture. Questions arose like, if women became academy members, who would escort them to the academy dinners? But going back to competition, there was an element of that; we have an artist called Diana Hill who went out to India to paint portraits and the leading male artist out there wrote that he would rather all the male artists came out to India rather than this one woman because he feared the competition so intensely.
How important has it been for women to work together, for instance forming their own clubs, in forging a path for women’s painting?
I think women coming together was really important in the nineteenth century while they were campaigning for their rights and access, mobilising together in force to combat all the barriers and prejudices they were facing in society. This was in parallel to the Suffrage movement beginning in the 1850s/60s and continuing into the early 20th century. It was parallel groups working together across Society.
Do you think women are still underrepresented within our national collections?
I think it is the case that women have been underrepresented for a long time, and the national collections are really aware of this and are taking great steps to address it; certainly at Tate we’ve had strategies in place for many years now to prioritise and focus on
acquired works by women artists. We now have a programme which is equally 50:50 women artists to male artists in the exhibition programme year-by-year. In our recent rehang, we took great steps where we could to increase representation for women artists. It has been the case for a long time, but now there is a greater awareness and a greater attempt to put right that wrong. And in this exhibition, we have recent acquisitions on display for the first time, such as the Louise Jopling.
Is the 50:50 ratio applied to contemporary artists or historic exhibitions as well?
It’s mainly applied to the programme, and so it is primarily considered with the display of twentiethcentury and contemporary artists, since it is more difficult with historic. Putting on a whole exhibition with the work of Henrietta Rae, for instance, would be impossible because they are just not there. We couldn’t do it.
Since historic sources are predominately authored by men how far is it possible to construct a ‘Her Story’ in contrast to a ‘His Story’?
It is the case that art history has primarily been written by men, however there are lots of documents out there by women, we’ve tried to find them; on the wall in front of us here, we have a letter to the press from an anonymous woman, probably Harriet Grote, who was a campaigner at the time for women’s rights, but women’s voices are there. We just need to find them and bring them out more. And that has been done by women art historians over decades such as Pamela Gerrish Nunn and Jan Marsh who are leading women in the field. But much more can and should be done and I hope this exhibition will really prompt that and take it forward.
Today particularly, in the curriculum art and even art history are considered more feminine subjects, what do you think has driven that change?
I think it is the case that art history as a profession, and art colleges, are female-dominated. I don’t know what the root of that is, I’m not sure I could speculate. Maybe it’s just tantamount to the idea that women do have creativity and creative flare and that is an outlet for it.
And, despite these being female-dominated subjects, would you say the art world and art history are still dominated by male figures?
- I think there is a certain amount of that. I'm not sure you could say that of the Tate where we have a female director and a female CEO and other female directors, but there is obviously still an element of that and the battle for women to have opportunities and equal access really continues.
Now You See Us: Women Artists in Britain 1520-1920 is showing at Tate Britain until 13th October.
Showing at Tate Britain until 13th October 2024, Now You See Us: Women Artists in Britain 1520-1920 is a monumental show featuring over one hundred artists and spanning four hundred years, unearthing women neglected and forgotten by male-dominated art history. We sat down with Assistant Curator Tim Batchelor at Tate Britain to find out more about the exhibition dubbed by Tate’s Director of Exhibitions and Displays, Andrea Schlieker, as the prequel to the groundbreaking and immensely successful exhibition Women in Revolt which just closed its doors.
Why are records on historic women artists so hard to trace and uncover?
It comes down to the lack of appreciation and value of women’s art; when that happens over centuries, anything that was there becomes lost, degraded, forgotten or overlooked. So when that moment comes when you want to find it, it’s not necessarily there, or you have to dig around so much… or sometimes you have to happen upon something - even in this exhibition so much research went into just trying to find out who the key artists were and what they actually produced, what was said about their works and then… Where are they now? Where can we find them? For many artists it was a real struggle - and we struggled - to find any particular works. For example, Henrietta Rae, in the mid to late Victorian period, was a really well-regarded, successful woman artist in society and the press, exhibiting regularly at the Royal Academy and causing a stir and scandal. Today very few of her works are known to survive and are very hard to get hold of. Some of that stature has been lost over time, it’s quite incredible, simply because prejudices of the 20th century got in the way and they weren’t collected and valued in the same way men were.
Would exceptional talent in an artist guarantee them success despite discrimination?
I think in the case of Henrietta Rae, what she considered her best work has been lost. We tried to find them, but whether they are out there and not known, have been destroyed or are masquerading under another name (which happens a lot to women’s work), we don’t know. Despite their fame, talent and success, it’s not always the case that women artists' best work will be known and survive.
And does that apply to women artists themselves? Are there artists we just don’t know anything about?
Absolutely, there are lots of key names that we came across and we couldn’t find the works to bring them into the exhibition - or the works that do survive are in terrible
condition and we weren’t able to display them. So this is four hundred years and over a hundred artists, with over 220 works but it’s a small snapshot of what else is out there; many of the artists we only have one work on display from them and there could be many others. For each of these hundred artists, only some of them have been well documented like Kauffman for instance.
What sets artists like Kauffman apart? What makes some artists traceable?
Some of them have managed to survive in time in a way that others haven’t because they were so well regarded in their day, but it’s only really Kauffman from the 18th century, and there are a few artists from the 19th century, there really aren’t that many, to be honest. It’s only reallywith people like Gwen John - because they exhibited through the twentieth century -that there is more documentation and things are better recorded. Whereas with earlier works that has not been the case.
In a similar way to the FA banning women’s football after record-breaking attendance, was there an element of men eliminating competition by banning women from art academies and Societies?
While there might have been an element of that, it had more to do with male conceptions of what women could and should do: ‘What is appropriate for a woman to be doing and what are they capable of doing?’. It’s not necessarily about women being in competition but it does come up occasionally…
But for example, the exhibition mentions how, despite watercolour being considered an appropriate medium for women even by the nineteenth century, the Old Watercolour Society admitted only four ‘Lady Members’ and ‘The New’ just ten, and they didn’t even have the same rights as the male members.
I think that primarily comes down to the idea of clubs and societies, which is old boys’ networks, and the coming together of men in this clubbable atmosphere, and the question of how women fit into that male environment and culture. Questions arose like, if women became academy members, who would escort them to the academy dinners? But going back to competition, there was an element of that; we have an artist called Diana Hill who went out to India to paint portraits and the leading male artist out there wrote that he would rather all the male artists came out to India rather than this one woman because he feared the competition so intensely.
How important has it been for women to work together, for instance forming their own clubs, in forging a path for women’s painting?
I think women coming together was really important in the nineteenth century while they were campaigning for their rights and access, mobilising together in force to combat all the barriers and prejudices they were facing in society. This was in parallel to the Suffrage movement beginning in the 1850s/60s and continuing into the early 20th century. It was parallel groups working together across Society.
Do you think women are still underrepresented within our national collections?
I think it is the case that women have been underrepresented for a long time, and the national collections are really aware of this and are taking great steps to address it; certainly at Tate we’ve had strategies in place for many years now to prioritise and focus on
acquired works by women artists. We now have a programme which is equally 50:50 women artists to male artists in the exhibition programme year-by-year. In our recent rehang, we took great steps where we could to increase representation for women artists. It has been the case for a long time, but now there is a greater awareness and a greater attempt to put right that wrong. And in this exhibition, we have recent acquisitions on display for the first time, such as the Louise Jopling.
Is the 50:50 ratio applied to contemporary artists or historic exhibitions as well?
It’s mainly applied to the programme, and so it is primarily considered with the display of twentiethcentury and contemporary artists, since it is more difficult with historic. Putting on a whole exhibition with the work of Henrietta Rae, for instance, would be impossible because they are just not there. We couldn’t do it.
Since historic sources are predominately authored by men how far is it possible to construct a ‘Her Story’ in contrast to a ‘His Story’?
It is the case that art history has primarily been written by men, however there are lots of documents out there by women, we’ve tried to find them; on the wall in front of us here, we have a letter to the press from an anonymous woman, probably Harriet Grote, who was a campaigner at the time for women’s rights, but women’s voices are there. We just need to find them and bring them out more. And that has been done by women art historians over decades such as Pamela Gerrish Nunn and Jan Marsh who are leading women in the field. But much more can and should be done and I hope this exhibition will really prompt that and take it forward.
Today particularly, in the curriculum art and even art history are considered more feminine subjects, what do you think has driven that change?
I think it is the case that art history as a profession, and art colleges, are female-dominated. I don’t know what the root of that is, I’m not sure I could speculate. Maybe it’s just tantamount to the idea that women do have creativity and creative flare and that is an outlet for it.
And, despite these being female-dominated subjects, would you say the art world and art history are still dominated by male figures?
- I think there is a certain amount of that. I'm not sure you could say that of the Tate where we have a female director and a female CEO and other female directors, but there is obviously still an element of that and the battle for women to have opportunities and equal access really continues.
Now You See Us: Women Artists in Britain 1520-1920 is showing at Tate Britain until 13th October.
Showing at Tate Britain until 13th October 2024, Now You See Us: Women Artists in Britain 1520-1920 is a monumental show featuring over one hundred artists and spanning four hundred years, unearthing women neglected and forgotten by male-dominated art history. We sat down with Assistant Curator Tim Batchelor at Tate Britain to find out more about the exhibition dubbed by Tate’s Director of Exhibitions and Displays, Andrea Schlieker, as the prequel to the groundbreaking and immensely successful exhibition Women in Revolt which just closed its doors.
Why are records on historic women artists so hard to trace and uncover?
It comes down to the lack of appreciation and value of women’s art; when that happens over centuries, anything that was there becomes lost, degraded, forgotten or overlooked. So when that moment comes when you want to find it, it’s not necessarily there, or you have to dig around so much… or sometimes you have to happen upon something - even in this exhibition so much research went into just trying to find out who the key artists were and what they actually produced, what was said about their works and then… Where are they now? Where can we find them? For many artists it was a real struggle - and we struggled - to find any particular works. For example, Henrietta Rae, in the mid to late Victorian period, was a really well-regarded, successful woman artist in society and the press, exhibiting regularly at the Royal Academy and causing a stir and scandal. Today very few of her works are known to survive and are very hard to get hold of. Some of that stature has been lost over time, it’s quite incredible, simply because prejudices of the 20th century got in the way and they weren’t collected and valued in the same way men were.
Would exceptional talent in an artist guarantee them success despite discrimination?
I think in the case of Henrietta Rae, what she considered her best work has been lost. We tried to find them, but whether they are out there and not known, have been destroyed or are masquerading under another name (which happens a lot to women’s work), we don’t know. Despite their fame, talent and success, it’s not always the case that women artists' best work will be known and survive.
And does that apply to women artists themselves? Are there artists we just don’t know anything about?
Absolutely, there are lots of key names that we came across and we couldn’t find the works to bring them into the exhibition - or the works that do survive are in terrible
condition and we weren’t able to display them. So this is four hundred years and over a hundred artists, with over 220 works but it’s a small snapshot of what else is out there; many of the artists we only have one work on display from them and there could be many others. For each of these hundred artists, only some of them have been well documented like Kauffman for instance.
What sets artists like Kauffman apart? What makes some artists traceable?
Some of them have managed to survive in time in a way that others haven’t because they were so well regarded in their day, but it’s only really Kauffman from the 18th century, and there are a few artists from the 19th century, there really aren’t that many, to be honest. It’s only reallywith people like Gwen John - because they exhibited through the twentieth century -that there is more documentation and things are better recorded. Whereas with earlier works that has not been the case.
In a similar way to the FA banning women’s football after record-breaking attendance, was there an element of men eliminating competition by banning women from art academies and Societies?
While there might have been an element of that, it had more to do with male conceptions of what women could and should do: ‘What is appropriate for a woman to be doing and what are they capable of doing?’. It’s not necessarily about women being in competition but it does come up occasionally…
But for example, the exhibition mentions how, despite watercolour being considered an appropriate medium for women even by the nineteenth century, the Old Watercolour Society admitted only four ‘Lady Members’ and ‘The New’ just ten, and they didn’t even have the same rights as the male members.
I think that primarily comes down to the idea of clubs and societies, which is old boys’ networks, and the coming together of men in this clubbable atmosphere, and the question of how women fit into that male environment and culture. Questions arose like, if women became academy members, who would escort them to the academy dinners? But going back to competition, there was an element of that; we have an artist called Diana Hill who went out to India to paint portraits and the leading male artist out there wrote that he would rather all the male artists came out to India rather than this one woman because he feared the competition so intensely.
How important has it been for women to work together, for instance forming their own clubs, in forging a path for women’s painting?
I think women coming together was really important in the nineteenth century while they were campaigning for their rights and access, mobilising together in force to combat all the barriers and prejudices they were facing in society. This was in parallel to the Suffrage movement beginning in the 1850s/60s and continuing into the early 20th century. It was parallel groups working together across Society.
Do you think women are still underrepresented within our national collections?
I think it is the case that women have been underrepresented for a long time, and the national collections are really aware of this and are taking great steps to address it; certainly at Tate we’ve had strategies in place for many years now to prioritise and focus on
acquired works by women artists. We now have a programme which is equally 50:50 women artists to male artists in the exhibition programme year-by-year. In our recent rehang, we took great steps where we could to increase representation for women artists. It has been the case for a long time, but now there is a greater awareness and a greater attempt to put right that wrong. And in this exhibition, we have recent acquisitions on display for the first time, such as the Louise Jopling.
Is the 50:50 ratio applied to contemporary artists or historic exhibitions as well?
It’s mainly applied to the programme, and so it is primarily considered with the display of twentiethcentury and contemporary artists, since it is more difficult with historic. Putting on a whole exhibition with the work of Henrietta Rae, for instance, would be impossible because they are just not there. We couldn’t do it.
Since historic sources are predominately authored by men how far is it possible to construct a ‘Her Story’ in contrast to a ‘His Story’?
It is the case that art history has primarily been written by men, however there are lots of documents out there by women, we’ve tried to find them; on the wall in front of us here, we have a letter to the press from an anonymous woman, probably Harriet Grote, who was a campaigner at the time for women’s rights, but women’s voices are there. We just need to find them and bring them out more. And that has been done by women art historians over decades such as Pamela Gerrish Nunn and Jan Marsh who are leading women in the field. But much more can and should be done and I hope this exhibition will really prompt that and take it forward.
Today particularly, in the curriculum art and even art history are considered more feminine subjects, what do you think has driven that change?
I think it is the case that art history as a profession, and art colleges, are female-dominated. I don’t know what the root of that is, I’m not sure I could speculate. Maybe it’s just tantamount to the idea that women do have creativity and creative flare and that is an outlet for it.
And, despite these being female-dominated subjects, would you say the art world and art history are still dominated by male figures?
- I think there is a certain amount of that. I'm not sure you could say that of the Tate where we have a female director and a female CEO and other female directors, but there is obviously still an element of that and the battle for women to have opportunities and equal access really continues.
Now You See Us: Women Artists in Britain 1520-1920 is showing at Tate Britain until 13th October.
Showing at Tate Britain until 13th October 2024, Now You See Us: Women Artists in Britain 1520-1920 is a monumental show featuring over one hundred artists and spanning four hundred years, unearthing women neglected and forgotten by male-dominated art history. We sat down with Assistant Curator Tim Batchelor at Tate Britain to find out more about the exhibition dubbed by Tate’s Director of Exhibitions and Displays, Andrea Schlieker, as the prequel to the groundbreaking and immensely successful exhibition Women in Revolt which just closed its doors.
Why are records on historic women artists so hard to trace and uncover?
It comes down to the lack of appreciation and value of women’s art; when that happens over centuries, anything that was there becomes lost, degraded, forgotten or overlooked. So when that moment comes when you want to find it, it’s not necessarily there, or you have to dig around so much… or sometimes you have to happen upon something - even in this exhibition so much research went into just trying to find out who the key artists were and what they actually produced, what was said about their works and then… Where are they now? Where can we find them? For many artists it was a real struggle - and we struggled - to find any particular works. For example, Henrietta Rae, in the mid to late Victorian period, was a really well-regarded, successful woman artist in society and the press, exhibiting regularly at the Royal Academy and causing a stir and scandal. Today very few of her works are known to survive and are very hard to get hold of. Some of that stature has been lost over time, it’s quite incredible, simply because prejudices of the 20th century got in the way and they weren’t collected and valued in the same way men were.
Would exceptional talent in an artist guarantee them success despite discrimination?
I think in the case of Henrietta Rae, what she considered her best work has been lost. We tried to find them, but whether they are out there and not known, have been destroyed or are masquerading under another name (which happens a lot to women’s work), we don’t know. Despite their fame, talent and success, it’s not always the case that women artists' best work will be known and survive.
And does that apply to women artists themselves? Are there artists we just don’t know anything about?
Absolutely, there are lots of key names that we came across and we couldn’t find the works to bring them into the exhibition - or the works that do survive are in terrible
condition and we weren’t able to display them. So this is four hundred years and over a hundred artists, with over 220 works but it’s a small snapshot of what else is out there; many of the artists we only have one work on display from them and there could be many others. For each of these hundred artists, only some of them have been well documented like Kauffman for instance.
What sets artists like Kauffman apart? What makes some artists traceable?
Some of them have managed to survive in time in a way that others haven’t because they were so well regarded in their day, but it’s only really Kauffman from the 18th century, and there are a few artists from the 19th century, there really aren’t that many, to be honest. It’s only reallywith people like Gwen John - because they exhibited through the twentieth century -that there is more documentation and things are better recorded. Whereas with earlier works that has not been the case.
In a similar way to the FA banning women’s football after record-breaking attendance, was there an element of men eliminating competition by banning women from art academies and Societies?
While there might have been an element of that, it had more to do with male conceptions of what women could and should do: ‘What is appropriate for a woman to be doing and what are they capable of doing?’. It’s not necessarily about women being in competition but it does come up occasionally…
But for example, the exhibition mentions how, despite watercolour being considered an appropriate medium for women even by the nineteenth century, the Old Watercolour Society admitted only four ‘Lady Members’ and ‘The New’ just ten, and they didn’t even have the same rights as the male members.
I think that primarily comes down to the idea of clubs and societies, which is old boys’ networks, and the coming together of men in this clubbable atmosphere, and the question of how women fit into that male environment and culture. Questions arose like, if women became academy members, who would escort them to the academy dinners? But going back to competition, there was an element of that; we have an artist called Diana Hill who went out to India to paint portraits and the leading male artist out there wrote that he would rather all the male artists came out to India rather than this one woman because he feared the competition so intensely.
How important has it been for women to work together, for instance forming their own clubs, in forging a path for women’s painting?
I think women coming together was really important in the nineteenth century while they were campaigning for their rights and access, mobilising together in force to combat all the barriers and prejudices they were facing in society. This was in parallel to the Suffrage movement beginning in the 1850s/60s and continuing into the early 20th century. It was parallel groups working together across Society.
Do you think women are still underrepresented within our national collections?
I think it is the case that women have been underrepresented for a long time, and the national collections are really aware of this and are taking great steps to address it; certainly at Tate we’ve had strategies in place for many years now to prioritise and focus on
acquired works by women artists. We now have a programme which is equally 50:50 women artists to male artists in the exhibition programme year-by-year. In our recent rehang, we took great steps where we could to increase representation for women artists. It has been the case for a long time, but now there is a greater awareness and a greater attempt to put right that wrong. And in this exhibition, we have recent acquisitions on display for the first time, such as the Louise Jopling.
Is the 50:50 ratio applied to contemporary artists or historic exhibitions as well?
It’s mainly applied to the programme, and so it is primarily considered with the display of twentiethcentury and contemporary artists, since it is more difficult with historic. Putting on a whole exhibition with the work of Henrietta Rae, for instance, would be impossible because they are just not there. We couldn’t do it.
Since historic sources are predominately authored by men how far is it possible to construct a ‘Her Story’ in contrast to a ‘His Story’?
It is the case that art history has primarily been written by men, however there are lots of documents out there by women, we’ve tried to find them; on the wall in front of us here, we have a letter to the press from an anonymous woman, probably Harriet Grote, who was a campaigner at the time for women’s rights, but women’s voices are there. We just need to find them and bring them out more. And that has been done by women art historians over decades such as Pamela Gerrish Nunn and Jan Marsh who are leading women in the field. But much more can and should be done and I hope this exhibition will really prompt that and take it forward.
Today particularly, in the curriculum art and even art history are considered more feminine subjects, what do you think has driven that change?
I think it is the case that art history as a profession, and art colleges, are female-dominated. I don’t know what the root of that is, I’m not sure I could speculate. Maybe it’s just tantamount to the idea that women do have creativity and creative flare and that is an outlet for it.
And, despite these being female-dominated subjects, would you say the art world and art history are still dominated by male figures?
- I think there is a certain amount of that. I'm not sure you could say that of the Tate where we have a female director and a female CEO and other female directors, but there is obviously still an element of that and the battle for women to have opportunities and equal access really continues.
Now You See Us: Women Artists in Britain 1520-1920 is showing at Tate Britain until 13th October.
