Modifying significant concepts to suit women

Some partial backups of posts from the past (Feb, 2004)

Modifying significant concepts to suit women

Postby David Quinn » Wed Jan 28, 2004 5:28 am

Here is an article which examimes the question of why there are no great women artists. Of interest to me is the way society's traditional notions of what constitutes great art have either been modified or abandoned in order to create the illusion that woman are as good at art as men are. This parallels what has happened in the spiritual field, wherein the very concept of enlightenment has been radically altered in order to create the illusion that women have as much potential for wisdom as men .

<a href="http://www.artnewsonline.com/currentarticle.cfm?art_id=1275">www.artnewsonline.com/cur...rt_id=1275</a>
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5331
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Re: Modifying significant concepts to suit women

Postby krussell2004 » Wed Jan 28, 2004 5:36 am

David you really are a dispicable troll. Edited by: krussell2004 at: 1/27/04 12:33 pm
krussell2004
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2004 10:23 pm

Re: Modifying significant concepts to suit women

Postby jimhaz » Wed Jan 28, 2004 5:38 am

lol, Krussell your statement defines you as a misogynist.
jimhaz
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2002 7:28 pm

Re: Modifying significant concepts to suit women

Postby krussell2004 » Wed Jan 28, 2004 5:43 am

jimhaz, If you were as anti-woman as David would you like to be reffered to as a woman with a beard. I think not. Being called a woman is the ultimate insult for a misogynist such as David. Think of the full context before you jump on other peoples statements. This shows a clear lack of insight on your part. Think it through.

btw Do something about that God-awful picture wil you? Do you really want to look like David. ;)
krussell2004
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2004 10:23 pm

Re: Modifying significant concepts to suit women

Postby jimhaz » Wed Jan 28, 2004 6:13 am

It is pointless trying to attack David with insults. Read at some later stage your comment would have been read as I did.

In any case the fact that you are willing to make that statement even if just sarcasm for the purpose of attack, creates in me a sense that you view yourself as superior to women. I can’t explain why.

<hr />

Yes is time to get rid of the picture. It is starting to annoy me as well.
jimhaz
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2002 7:28 pm

Re: Modifying significant concepts to suit women

Postby Naturyl » Wed Jan 28, 2004 6:22 am

Glad to hear it. The picture is hideous.
Naturyl
 
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2003 6:12 am

Re: Modifying significant concepts to suit women

Postby krussell2004 » Wed Jan 28, 2004 6:32 am

jimhaz, you're point is well taken. I will edit my post so it doesn't contain the controversial reference, and I apologize if it offended anyone.

Quote:
Quote:<hr>In any case the fact that you are willing to make that statement even if just sarcasm for the purpose of attack, creates in me a sense that you view yourself as superior to women. I can’t explain why.<hr>


The same could be said about your picture. I have to admit that when I first saw it, I thought you were a misogynist who was using it to mock women. Your posts, however, indicate otherwise. FYI I don't consider myself superior to women. I think to view oneself as superior to others on any basis is stupid. We all have faults and I'm no model for perfection that's for sure. Though, I see how my remarks can give off such an impression. Therefore, I will remove it.
krussell2004
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2004 10:23 pm

Re: Modifying significant concepts to suit women

Postby David Quinn » Wed Jan 28, 2004 6:42 am

Krussel wrote:

Quote:
Quote:<hr> I think to view oneself as superior to others on any basis is stupid. <hr>
So when you wrote on another thread:

What kind of a man are you? Not only are you a misogynist but a hypocrite as well. Might I add that you are a spirtitual eunuch. I take back what I said about you being a pathetic human being. You are beyond pathetic.

You weren't believing yourself to be superior to me?


User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5331
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Re: Modifying significant concepts to suit women

Postby krussell2004 » Wed Jan 28, 2004 6:53 am

Why David. You must know I meant that in the most endearing way. :)
krussell2004
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2004 10:23 pm

Re: Modifying significant concepts to suit women

Postby Thomas Knierim » Wed Jan 28, 2004 6:54 am

<span style="color:white;">David: Of interest to me is the way society's traditional notions of what constitutes great art have either been modified or abandoned in order to create the illusion that woman are as good at art as men are.</span>

This is a fairly idiotic conclusion, since exactly the opposite is the case. Society's traditional notions of women's art were detrimental to the arts and to women. Artists with breasts were simply not recognized or tolerated by the patriarchy. For example, female painters in the late nineteenth century did not have the freedom to walk the streets, frequent the cafes, and live the life of a painter. Luckily this has changed.

<span style="color:white;">David: ...the question of why there are no great women artists...</span>

Some of the following artists would probably protest:

Caterina dei Vigri (1413-1463), Maria Ormani, Lucia Anguissola (c.1540-1565), Sofonisba Anguissola (1531-1626), Andriola de Baracchi, Sibylla de Bondorff, Suzanne de Court, Anna Cromenburch, Lavinia Fontana (1552-1614),Fede Galizia (1578-1630), Diana Scultori Ghisi (1547-1612), Caterina Hemessen (1527/8-c.1566), Esther Kello, aka Esther Inglis (1571-1624), Barbara Longhi (1552-1638), Properzia de' Rossi (1490-1530), Plautilla Nelli (1523-1588), Levina Teerline (c.1510-1576), Marietta Robusti Tintoretto (1560-1590), Caterina van Hemessen (c.1527-c.1566), Josefa de Ayala / de Óbidos (1630-1684), Mary Beale (1632-1697), Antoinette Bouzonnet-Stella (1641-1678), Plautilla Bricci (1616-c.1690), Orsola Maddalena Caccia, Elisabeth Sophie Chéron (1648-1711), Suzanne de Court, Lucrina Fetti, Giovanna Fratellini (166?-1731), Fede Galizia (1578-1630), Giovanna Garzoni (1600-1670), Artemesia Gentileschi (1593-1652), Anne Killigrew, and Lady Killigrew? (1660-1685), Judith Leyster (1609-1660), Maria Sibylla Merian (1647-1717), Louise Moillon (1610-1696), Clara Peeters (1589-1657), Teresa Del Po (1649-1716), Geertruydt Roghman (1625-??),Luisa Ignacia Roldan (1656-1704), Susan Penelope Rosse (1652-1700), Anna Elisabeth Ruysch (1666-c.1741), Rachel Ruysch (1664-1750), Elisabetta Sirani (1638-1665), Claudine Bouzonnet Stella (1636-1697), Gesina ter Borch, Maria van Oosterwyck (1630-1693), Magdalena van de Passe (c.1600-1640), Anna Maria Van Schurman (1607-1668), Anna Waser (1675-c.1713), Anne Allen, Ann Bateman (1749-1815), Hester Bateman (1708-1794), Lady Diana Beauclerk (1734-1808), Marie-Guillemine Benoist (1768-1826), Elizabeth Blackwell (1700-1747), Alice Burrows (c.1776-??), Sarah Buttall (c.1734-??), Rosalba Carriera (1675-1757), Marie Anne Collot (1748-1821), Maria Cosway (1760-1838), Louisa Courtauld (1729-1807), Mary Ann Croswell (c.1775-??), Anne Seymour Damer (1748-1823), Marie Nicole Dumont (1767-1846), Rose Adélaïde Ducreux (1761-1802), Francoise Duparc (1726-1778), Rebecca Emes (c.1778-1829), Amelia Farnborough(1762-1837), Magdalen Feline (C.1733-??), Marie Anne Gérard Fragonard / Madame Fragonard (1745-1823), Marguerite Gérard (1761-1837), Marie-Eleonore Godefroid (1778-1849), Elizabeth Godfrey (c.1700-??), Antoinette Haudebourt-Lescot
Henrietta Johnson (c.1670-c.1728), Angelica Kauffman (1741-1807),Adélaïde Labille-Guiard (1749-1803), Dorothy Langlands (c.1783-??), Marie-Victoire Lemoine (1754-1820), Elizabeth Leveson-Gower, Countess of Sutherland (1765-1839),
Anna Dorothea Liszewska-Therbusch (1721-1782), Marie Anne Loir (1715-1769), Amelia Long (1772-1821), Constance Mayer (1775-1821), Charlotte Mercier (1738-1762), Dorothy Mills (c.1716-??), Marie-Genevieve Navarre (1737-1795), Ulrica Frederika Pasch (1735-1796), Eunice Pinney (1770-1849), Maria Catherine Prestel, nee Hull (1744-1794), Luisa Roldan, Adèle Romany (1769-1846), Frances Scott (1750-1817),Anne Valleyer-Costa(1744-1818), Maria Verelst (1680-1744), Elisabeth-Louise Vigée-Lebrun (1755-1842), Marie-Denise Villers (1174-1821), Anna Waser (1675-c.1713), Caroline Watson (1758-1814), Clara Wheatley ((c.1750-1838), Patience Wright (1725-1786), Louise Abbema (1858-1927), Sophie Anderson (1855-1903), Maria Bashkirtseff, Amelia Bauerley, Leila T. Bauman, Cecilia Beaux (1855-1942), Camille Bellanger, Enella Benedict (1858-1942),Anna Bilinska (1857-1893), Charlotte Bonaparte (1802-1837), Rosa Bonheur (1822-1899), Elizabeth Gardener Bouguereau (1837-1922), Marie Bracquemond (1841-1916), Jennie Augusta Brownscombe (1850-1936), Anne Frances Byrne (1775-1837), Kate Elizabeth Bunce, Margaret Lesley Bush-Brown (1857-1944), Elizabeth Thompson Butler, Julia Margaret Cameron (1815-1879), Mary Helen Carlisle (1869-1925), Emily Carr (1871-1945), Louisa Starr Canziani, Mary Cassatt (1844-1926), Minerva Chapman (1858-1947), Mary Millicent Chaplin, Camille Claudel (1864-1943), Gabrielle de Veaux Clements (1858-1948), Edith Ellenborough Corbet, Maria Dixon, Susan Macdowell Eakins (1851-1938), Semantha Fairbanks, Ellen Bowditch, Thayer Fisher ,Camille Flers (1802-1868), Elizabeth A. Armstrong Forbes (1859-1912), Eleanor Fortescue-Brickdale, Eva Gonzalès (1849-1883), Lady Gordon (1775-1821), Adrienne-Marie-Louise Grandpierre-Deverzy (1798-1855), Bessie Pease Gutmann (1876-1960), Ann Hall (1792-1863), Antoinette-Cecile Hortense Haudebourt-Lescot (1784-1845), Claude Raguet Hirst (1855-1942), Anne Brownell Jameson, Anna Klumpke (1856-1942), Mary Edmonia Lewis (1845-1879),Marie-Françoise-Constance Mayer-Lamartinière (1775-1821),Anna Lea Merritt, Harriet Jane Moore (1801-1884), Mary Nimmo Moran (1842-1899), Evelyn Pickering de Morgan (1850-1919), Berthe Morisot (1841-1895), Laura Mott, Elizabeth Nourse (1859-1938), Emily Mary Osborn, Deborah Griscom Passmore (1840-1911), Anna Claypoole Peale (1791-1878),Sarah Miriam Peale (1800-1885), Lilla Cabot Perry (1848-1933), Mary King Porter (1865-1938),Constance Pott (1862-1937), Otagaki Rengetsu (1791-1875), Ellen Robbins (1828-1905),Christina Robertson, Ann Sanders, Rolinda Sharples (1793-1838), Elizabeth Eleanor Siddal (1829-1862), Rebecca Solomon (1832-1886), Lilly Martin Spencer (1822-1902), Marie Spartali Stillman (1844-1927), Annie Swynnerton, Suzanne Valadon (1865-1938),Lady Wharncliffe (c.1776-1821), Mary Wicks.

complete list: <a href="http://www.wendy.com/women/artists.html">www.wendy.com/women/artists.html</a>

Thomas
Thomas Knierim
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Jul 17, 2002 6:20 pm

Re: Modifying significant concepts to suit women

Postby krussell2004 » Wed Jan 28, 2004 7:02 am

Quote:
Quote:<hr>So when you wrote on another thread:

What kind of a man are you? Not only are you a misogynist but a hypocrite as well. Might I add that you are a spirtitual eunuch. I take back what I said about you being a pathetic human being. You are beyond pathetic.

You weren't believing yourself to be superior to me? <hr>


No. I was admonishing you and placing a value judgement for the fake you clearly are. You abandon all your moral obligations to search for some "Ultimate Reality" and try to pause yourself off as some kind of religious figure and preach your prejudices to others. That is how ever your choice, but a fool hardy and self serving one that is ultimately self-defeating. It doesn't make you inferior as much as it makes you the author of your own misfortunes due to your inferior course of action.
krussell2004
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2004 10:23 pm

Re: Modifying significant concepts to suit women

Postby David Quinn » Wed Jan 28, 2004 7:10 am

You obviously must believe that your values and choices are superior to those made by frauds and authors of their own misfortune?
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5331
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Re: Modifying significant concepts to suit women

Postby jimhaz » Wed Jan 28, 2004 7:11 am

Re - the picture

At first it was mostly just a joke picture, as like you when I was first here I rejected most of the principles that the QRS believe in, but then after reading a bit of Weininger I found it to be a reflection of the feminine/masculine traits that we all share, so I left it there. It is a reflection of the male/female confusion that the topics discussed here create in people.

I also used it because it put people offside a bit. So from peoples reaction to it, I could quickly get a sense of how emotionally minded they were.

It was also a statement of low self-regard, so it was a picture saying I could laugh at myself.

This forum has made me change the way I look at things, so now I will have to find something else. I think a white background with a crack running thought it might be the go or some icon that signifies my mind remains whimsical. Ahh! just thought of something else that might suit – hope I can find a jpeg. Edited by: jimhaz at: 1/27/04 1:12 pm
jimhaz
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2002 7:28 pm

Re: Modifying significant concepts to suit women

Postby krussell2004 » Wed Jan 28, 2004 7:11 am

Quote:
Quote:<hr>This is a fairly idiotic conclusion, since exactly the opposite is the case. Society's traditional notions of women's art were detrimental to the arts and to women. Artists with breasts were simply not recognized or tolerated by the patriarchy. For example, female painters in the late nineteenth century did not have the freedom to walk the streets, frequent the cafes, and live the life of a painter. Luckily this has changed.<hr>


I agree Thomas. This thread is a tale told by an idiot and signifying absolutely nothing.
krussell2004
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2004 10:23 pm

Re: Modifying significant concepts to suit women

Postby David Quinn » Wed Jan 28, 2004 7:13 am

Thomas,

Do any these female artists possess the greatness of a Michelangelo or a Picasso?
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5331
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Re: Modifying significant concepts to suit women

Postby krussell2004 » Wed Jan 28, 2004 7:17 am

Quote:
Quote:<hr>You obviously must believe that your values and choices are superior to those made by frauds and authors of their own misfortune? <hr>


By my values and choices yes. But not based on differences in gender, race, ethnicity or sexual orientation. There is a big difference, don't you think? Edited by: krussell2004 at: 1/27/04 1:17 pm
krussell2004
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2004 10:23 pm

Re: Modifying significant concepts to suit women

Postby David Quinn » Wed Jan 28, 2004 7:35 am

Sure. But I don't make judgments based on differences in gender, race, ethnicity or sexual orientation either. That would be stupid. Rather, I judge each individual I meet, man or woman, on their mental qualities, level of understanding and values. That is what interests me most as a philosopher.

The fact that I have a generally low opinion of women, in terms of their mental and spiritual qualities, is borne out of many years of experience and observation of women in the world. That is to say, it is borne out of repeatedly judging individuals of both sexes in terms of their mental qualities, level of understanding and values, and finding over and over again that women are seriously lacking in these areas. It's a reality I can't ignore, even though I know that articulating it makes me terribly unpopular.
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5331
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Re: Modifying significant concepts to suit women

Postby Naturyl » Wed Jan 28, 2004 7:40 am

Greatness, greatness, greatness. What is it with the fixation on superiority and supremacy? Why must everything be 'deep,' 'lofty,' and 'grand' with you? If the greatest artists happen to be men, does it mean that female artists can only produce rubbish? Have you no appreciation for diversity and differences in taste? A woman (or a man) may paint something tommorow on the back of a tin can which speaks to me far more than the Sistine Chapel ever can, no matter how large the concensus for the greatness of Michaelangelo. There is a lot more room for difference in this world than you want to allow.
Naturyl
 
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2003 6:12 am

Re: Modifying significant concepts to suit women

Postby birdofhermes » Wed Jan 28, 2004 7:59 am

Don't worry David, females are not nearly so smug or happy as you think:

Adolescent boys and girls understand, if adults have forgotten, that the adolescent experience is markedly different for boys and girls, and that the overall experience, with some exceptions, favors boys. When young adolescents are asked whether advantages lie in being male or female in today’s culture, boys win hands down. One recent study of 2000 middle-school students in five states asked them to describe the best thing about their gender. [17] Both girls and boys in the survey agreed that boys can do more and are viewed as better, while the boys’ responses regarding their advantages fell into two categories: “We can do more things,” and, “Not being a girl.” “Boys clearly saw themselves as able to do more, to be more active in sports, have more fun and more opportunities,” while the most common responses of the girls when asked the best thing about their gender were distressing: “I don’t know.” “Can’t think of any.”

And asked the worst thing about their gender, middle-school girls commonly replied, “I don’t get to do boy things.” “Men don’t think we can do anything.” “People don’t think we are as good as boys.” “Being ladylike.” “Getting treated unequally.”’ When the boys were asked what was the worst thing about their gender, their most common answer was especially telling: “Nothing.” [18]

birdofhermes
 
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:34 pm

Re: Modifying significant concepts to suit women

Postby jimhaz » Wed Jan 28, 2004 8:10 am

Don't worry David, females are not nearly so smug or happy as you think

It is hardly surprising Birdy. As young females in the way they chat with each end up 'festering' their emotions. They make more of them than they need to. They do this because it excites them and it is something they have in common, and they think is a way of being superior to boys.

No wonder so many young girls end up with eating disorders.
jimhaz
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2002 7:28 pm

Re: Modifying significant concepts to suit women

Postby Thomas Knierim » Wed Jan 28, 2004 8:28 am

<span style="color:white;">David: Thomas, Do any these female artists possess the greatness of a Michelangelo or a Picasso?</span>

Well, greatness is culturally construed, so there are few female artists who have been idealized as much as those artists you mentioned. It's a result of male dominated culture. That's one thing. Another thing is that female artists fought an uphill battle which put artificial (social) constraints on artistic development.

Until recently, painting was a male niche. But, look at music. Singing has long been a socially accepted role for females. If you want to talk about "greatness" then let's look at this particular niche where females are allowed. It's not that only SOME of the "greatest" singers are female. There is approximately a 50/50 ratio and that is exactly what you would expect in the absence of artificial social constraints.

Thomas
Thomas Knierim
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Jul 17, 2002 6:20 pm

Re: Modifying significant concepts to suit women

Postby voce io » Wed Jan 28, 2004 9:00 am

If the opportunities and achievements of both men and women were placed on a scale, men on the left, women on the right; the scale would balance out perfectly.

Do you all see what I just did right there? I pulled a David style argument. There is no evidence, only conclusions. Most likely, half of everyone will agree with that, and the other half wouldn't. Yet, if I actually gave supporting evidence, I'm sure more would be swayed to whatever was deemed logical.

Personally, I've seen women artists as great. Men are great too. There are subtle differences, but if you look at modern painters, there are probably just as many women as men, and I'm positive all are just as good as the other.

Give some proof that there aren't, and they aren't.
voce io
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 12:05 am

Re: Modifying significant concepts to suit women

Postby jimhaz » Wed Jan 28, 2004 9:07 am

If the opportunities and achievements of both men and women were placed on a scale, men on the left, women on the right; the scale would balance out perfectly.

In the most basic sense that could be true, but only as we are all born to women. On the other hand, many great achievers had masculine minded or neglectful mothers, or fathers with above average wisdom, so what does that tell you.
jimhaz
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2002 7:28 pm

Re: Modifying significant concepts to suit women

Postby WolfsonJakk » Wed Jan 28, 2004 9:08 am

My God, you guys are so easily played. There isn't (and never has been some choice in this matter). He is pulling your strings merely so you will question. Can't you see the snicker in his words?
WolfsonJakk
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 6:50 pm

Re: Modifying significant concepts to suit women

Postby Naturyl » Wed Jan 28, 2004 9:27 am

That's what you (and he) want us to believe, I'm sure.
Naturyl
 
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2003 6:12 am

Next

Return to Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest