Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

History of Feminism

hlthe2b

(109,054 posts)

25. Thanks, CTyankee... I knew there would be women creating in the background....

Reply to CTyankee (Reply #24)

Sat Feb 22, 2014, 01:36 PM

Feb 2014

But, I have to say, despite your rare exceptions, they were truly in the background.. Seems to me that is the point.

BTW, don't take this to mean I don't appreciate the benefit we receive from your art knowledge. I don't often post on your art-related threads, but I do look forward to them.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

36 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Botticelli, Rubens, Raphael: "The Three Graces" and the SI cover [View all] CTyankee Feb 2014 OP

You obviously don't know art CT. sufrommich Feb 2014 #1

I know but I thought that examples would be the better teacher... CTyankee Feb 2014 #2

No, CT most definitely knows art. redqueen Feb 2014 #4

oh, I thought suffromich was being ironic...I don't think she meant it...so I am not at all CTyankee Feb 2014 #5

Oh heck. redqueen Feb 2014 #6

It happens to the best of us. sufrommich Feb 2014 #9

But it's you! redqueen Feb 2014 #11

Lol. nt sufrommich Feb 2014 #12

Lol,I was being ironic. sufrommich Feb 2014 #8

None of the three graces were posed in hypersexualized, unnatural ways. redqueen Feb 2014 #3

Yes, and my other point was how the view of women's bodies in great art changed over CTyankee Feb 2014 #7

Always our reality, distorted by the preferences of the male gaze. redqueen Feb 2014 #13

It's possible that's an understatement.:) malthaussen Feb 2014 #10

For me it's that one half of humanity is still setting the terms of the discussion. redqueen Feb 2014 #14

No argument there. malthaussen Feb 2014 #16

It does, and that's one reason I became a radical feminist. redqueen Feb 2014 #19

But what if women and men really are "other" to one another? malthaussen Feb 2014 #21

It would be fascinating to juxtapose the works of the great female artists of the same period... hlthe2b Feb 2014 #15

"Male perception?" malthaussen Feb 2014 #17

So, it is just fine and dandy to have men speak, express, and create the record for the women hlthe2b Feb 2014 #18

Didn't you just agree with this same assertion in post 14? nt redqueen Feb 2014 #20

Not exactly. malthaussen Feb 2014 #22

Women couldn't buy paint. KitSileya Feb 2014 #28

Didn't know those stats. malthaussen Feb 2014 #29

Oh, women have ALWAYS been artists! Yes, they are usually defined as "crafts" but art they certainly CTyankee Feb 2014 #24

Thanks, CTyankee... I knew there would be women creating in the background.... hlthe2b Feb 2014 #25

I guess my point is that they were only in the background of what is termed Fine Arts... CTyankee Feb 2014 #27

But that's why they were called "minor arts," no? malthaussen Feb 2014 #30

Of course! It's just terminology...art is art... CTyankee Feb 2014 #31

Interesting riff in the Cryptonomicon... malthaussen Feb 2014 #32

We talked about the renaissance a couple of weeks ago. KitSileya Feb 2014 #33

there is real blood in Artemisia's and also the look of determination is a lot CTyankee Feb 2014 #34

Nice ismnotwasm Feb 2014 #23

Really elleng Feb 2014 #26

Fascinating! JustAnotherGen Feb 2014 #35

glad you liked it. someone once termed this "the bloody crossroads of art and politics" and he/she CTyankee Feb 2014 #36