Overall, this was an informative and interesting article. There were a couple of times I felt that the author got off topic, or went on and on, about some of the ideas.
I found the debate between art and craft one of particular interest. I think that it still a debate today, as often times we don’t consider “crafts” art even though they are. Women were made to do more craft like, laboreous work around their home in the early 1900s and earlier. Women did not have the leisurely pleasure of spending their days painting, or making other types of artwork, like men did. Men were commissioned by upper class families to make fine art, while the women were to take care of the family, run errands, clean, etc. The things (crafts) that women did make during this time were usually things that could be used, or had some sort of purpose. This was what they were expected to do. Yet, these things were not considered “art”. Fine art was what was made by men, for aesthetic purposes. Whether or not a woman had input ideas for a piece of work would not be known, because it was always men who got the recognition for their work.
Another point I found of interest was the idea that when looking at a piece of work, you take a masculine view point (to put it roughly). I think this is extremely true of fine art because a lot of the work made during the time was of nude women. These women were painted, and sold for high value. There was never any recognition for the “object” (this is exactly what she was), and these were made for men to enjoy. I think this also plays in with Plato’s idea of memesis. He said that a real object becomes less real (3x) when painted. I think this is also true of the women that were used as objects in fine art. Their bodies were sold in these paintings, but there was never anything else behind that. They became less of a real person, and more of an object.
The idea of only men being “geniuses” was a little infuriating, to say the least. If “most theorists” honestly believed that only men possess the physical ability to be a genius, then that is quite discouraging. How are women to better themselves, or believe they can succeed, when constantly put down by a general population? It is a fact, that the majority of historical, famous figures are male. However, I don’t think that many of these theorist have taken the time to step back, and wonder about the women these men were around. Historically, many male figures can attribute some of their ideas and success to their female counterparts. So, to say that only men possess the ability to be a genius is both egotistical, and disheartening. (And that is probably the point.)
To summarize, I think this article was overall very informative. The author didn’t seem to take a biased stand point in writing this. I think that feminism is something that definitely still needs to exist. It is both infuriating and discouraging that men are praised for sensitivity and emotion, while women are scrutinized for masculinity. Until their is a fine equality in the sexes (there definitely isn’t at this point, and anyone who disagrees is blind to inequality) feminism will continue to strive and question societies norms.