Inspiration
Now You See Us
When is it all right to be impolite? There was a time when for women to paint was unladylike, forbidden, scandalous, and, yes, impolite.
In 1892, Annie Louisa Swynnerton painted “Mater Triumphalis,” a full length nude woman nearly life size. Male artists and ladies and gentlemen of the public were shocked. Why? The nude looked too real—like an actual woman standing before the world wearing no clothes at all.
But let’s go back a bit. Women, like men, have always made marks on surfaces and created patterns from materials.
Any trip to a major museum or even those little out-of-the-way museums where some future-thinking person gathered up a bunch of dusty old things will tell you that we humans love to decorate and transform materials and environments through art and craft.
But then there’s painting—one of those forms of mark-making which at some point was set aside as “Art” with a capital “A.” And when it was set aside long ago, it became the domain of men and the gates to it were guarded by men.
But a few women continually snuck through these gates. Their brushes would not be still. And it is these women who have inspired Tate Britain’s exhibition “Now You See Us: Women Artists in Britain 1520–1920.”
By chipping away over centuries at the perceptions of what women could and could not paint, these women made it possible for me to go to art school. This is not to say that the art world today is bias free, but, thankfully, no one is saying that I (or any other woman) can paint only portraits of society ladies or nasturtiums.
However, it was painting society ladies and nasturtiums that kept that satin-shod female foot in the door. Portraits, landscapes, miniatures, and horticultural studies were subjects open to women because they were considered “polite arts.”
In other words, there was no risk of a woman expressing a point of view or opinion in these pictures. Or was there a glimpse of an opinion hidden in those genteel works?
Let’s take a closer look at three paintings where, despite their seeming politeness, an opinion shines through.
Academy painter Joshua Reynolds claimed that “a painter’s gift for invention was their power of committing a mental picture onto canvas. In the 18th century, this form of artistic ‘genius’ was considered the exclusive preserve of men. Women artists were regarded as ‘imitators’ incapable of complex creativity.”
Angelica Kauffman, Reynolds’s contemporary, painted a portrait of a woman and called her “Invention” directly contradicting Reynolds.
And how about this miniature? Considered one of the “lower” arts, miniatures according to Reynolds were “just what ladies do when they paint for their own amusement.” But women were able to make a living painting these treasured portraits. Before the days of photography, a miniature would be the only portable depiction of a loved one.
Enter Sarah Biffin, one of the most accomplished miniature and portrait painters of the early 19th century. Here is her self portrait.
“Biffin, whose baptism record notes that she was born ‘without arms or legs,’ taught herself to sew, write and paint using her mouth and shoulder. She wrote that, as a child, ‘I was continually practicing every invention; till at length I could, with my mouth thread a needle, tie a knot, do fancy work, cut out, and make my own dresses.'”
Let’s take another “polite” form of painting which women did “for amusement.” Augusta Innes Withers painted this auricula in 1830. Nice flower in a wicker pot.
Look more closely. Beside the pot you see a letter. The letter is stamped with the mark of the Twopenny Post Receiving House on St James’s Street. This was where royal correspondence from St James’s Palace would have been sent.
Withers had just been appointed Flower Painter in Ordinary to Queen Adelaide, wife of King William IV. This is actually a painting of Withers’s own rare achievement.
Sarah Angelina Acland, Untitled (Woman picking flowers – Margaret Hope?], 1909. Wilson Centre for Photography.
Through winning watercolor and needle-painting competitions, setting up their own small societies, lobbying the established Academies, society patronage, and doing paid work, brush stroke by brush stroke, women painters began to paint themselves into the story of “Painting” with a capital “P.”
Though their subjects such as that too-real nude were criticized and academies closed ranks against them, women’s voices in color, line, and texture became too accomplished and too many to be ignored.
Emily Osborn, Nameless and Friendless. “The rich man’s wealth is his strong city: the destruction of the poor is their poverty” (Proverbs: 10:15), 1857. Tate.
When photographic processes were invented in the late 1800s, women were among the first to embrace this novel medium and to exhibit their pictures. No chance for anyone to put up a gate barring women, they’d already planted themselves firmly behind the tripod.
Clare Atwood, The Terrace outside the Priest’s House, Kent, 1919. National Trust Collections.
The Art world with a capital “A” remains one in which women have continued to resist gatekeeping. This is a story which continues in exhibitions featured here on MDK like “Unravel” at the Barbican and “Women in Revolt” at Tate Britain (now on at Modern Two Gallery in Edinburgh until the end of January 2025).
We also continue the story of women in art every time we pick up a brush, a needle, a chisel, or a ball of yarn and ignite these objects with our own creative spark.
Reminder: It’s Time to Register for Next Year’s MDK Knitting Getaway!
It’s the happiest getaway of the year, and it’s happening again next June 4-7. Read all about it and sign up here. Payment is not due at this time. We’d love to have you with us in 2025!
Come Shop With Us
What an insightful article! It makes me want to get on a plane to visit these exhibits. Thanks for sharing your experience with us.
Thank you, SLM, I’m glad you enjoyed my article! Get on that plane, but not right this minute because it’s very rainy and windy for summer! 🙂
And in most of these paintings, I suspect, you can’t even tell if they were done by a woman or a man. Except maybe if there were an abundance of babies (women). Or prizefighters (men). This has been most illuminating. Thank you so much. I would love a visit to the Tate, too. It’s been too long.
Closer to home, for those of us in the US, is a phenomenal Mary Cassatt exhibit at the Philadelphia Museum of Art. This exhibition views Cassatt’s work through the lens of women and their work. Even if you think you know Cassatt’s artistic output, this show is a must-see.
That sounds stellar, Kathy! Thank you for mentioning this exhibit!
Philadelphia is a 4 hour drive for me, it would have to be an overnight trip to see the exhibition but sounds worth it.
Jeni, your articles are always so interesting to me….thank you.
That’s very kind, Shelley! Thank you!!
Articles like this, among a multitude of other reasons, are why I love MDK.
Thank you, LISA!!
Thank you for your incredible article. I am always in awe of painting artists, I have no such talent. I only hope one day that knitting will be recognized as the true artform that it is.
I completely agree about knitting, Judy! I have never been comfortable or convinced about the separation between Art and Craft. It seems so artificial. Thank you for reading and I’m glad you enjoyed the article!
Thank you for yet another informative article. Oh how I wish I could be there to see this exhibit. Thanks for the arm chair voyage and perspective you plopped in my head this morning.
Thank you, Linda!!
Yes!
…and thank you, MDK.
FABULOUS!
Is that Mr Degas I spy in the next to the last painting, displaying one of his ballerinas to The other gentleman?
Ooh! I do see that now. I think you’re right, Cindy! Good catch!
Did something get lost in editing your post? You haven’t identified the artists and subjects of the last three images. We want to know the artists and contexts! The story painting (next to last image) is particularly intriguing. A widow selling a painting she inherited – or selling her own work?
Thank you, Gretchen! This was a mistake in the uploading and we’re fixing it. Not intentional at all to have left the attributions off. As far as that particular painting go, article length meant I couldn’t delve into each one, but the details are: Emily Osborn, Nameless and Friendless. “The rich man’s wealth is his strong city: the destruction of the poor is their poverty” (Proverbs: 10:15), 1857. Tate.
And Osborn was highlighting the plight of women who painted for money and whose art was seen as less valuable and desirable by picture dealers. Such a poignant image. Thanks again for your patience regarding the attributions. That will be fixed ASAP.
Thank you for the essay (and for the timely edits)!
Great article. Always enjoy these postcards from the U.K. Even though they stir up intense FOMO.
Aww, I know about FOMO, Leslie! I keep seeing things at the American Folk Art museum and Baltimore Museum of Art that I want to see. I’m glad that we have the internet to give us a little glimpse. I’m glad you enjoyed the article!! Lots of smiles to you!
Really a stunning reality to artists of the past.
Art historian (knitted) hat on – Please caption the artwork. Artist, title, location.
And I believe the Reynolds’ quote has an improper quotation mark.
Female artists were allowed in the bastions of the academies… not many but they did exist. Some are well known, others are coming out of the proverbial woodwork.
Hi Gail, This was a mistake in the uploading and we’re fixing it. Not intentional at all to have left the attributions off. So, bear with us. Yes, the women in the academies were highlighted in the exhibition and it was extraordinary that they got into those highly gated groups. There are word limits when I submit an article like this and I’m afraid that I just couldn’t fit everything in, but I hope that my article will inspire readers to visit the exhibition and other exhibitions like it. I think exhibitions highlighting women in art are gaining ground, so I look forward to more!
To those in the US – there was a great exhibit in Baltimore (sadly closed but there is a great accompanying catalog) on women in art:
https://artbma.org/exhibition/making-her-mark-a-history-of-women-artists-in-europe-1400-1800/
And a museum of Women and Art in DC.
https://nmwa.org/
Just stuff to peruse.
For those who want to learn more, there was a great exhibit at the Baltimore Museum of Art (closed) on women artists in Europe with an accompanying catalog, and a National Museum of Women in Art in Washington, DC. Google them!
Oops
Women are persistent!!! Lovely sampling, Jeni. I’m off to the website for an afternoon delight!
Thanks very much, Kathleen!
Wow! I am still looking at the self portrait of Sarah Biffin. What skill and determination she must have had. And perhaps an independent income. thanks for another gallery tour!
Astounding! Biffin’s determination to be a maker is so inspiring! Thank you , Jeni!
IMITATORS , INCAPABLE OF COMPLEX CREATIVITY…WOW !
I THINK OF THOSE BEAUTIFUL QUILTS OF GEE’S BEND
THE QUILT THAT MY GRANDMOTHER GAVE ME WHEN I WAS MARRIED THAT SHE AND HER MOTHER HAD MADE. WE ARE THOSE WOMEN THAT CREATE COMPLEX DESIGNS AND OUR HISTORY IS EVERYWHERE. Thank You for such a wonderful article. It has stayed with me for days and it made me feel proud about my knitting heritage, my grandmother taught me how to knit when I was 12 years old, but I didn’t become a serious knitter until I took a class that was taught by a wonderful friend who used the Elizabeth Zimmerman method (s)
Wonderful article. Thank you. I look forward to more.