Now You See Us.

An Exclusive System in Paintings

To understand how an exclusive social system operates, visit the exhibition of women artists working in Britain from 1520 to 1920 in Tate Britain. You will likely be unfamiliar with many of these artists—and there's a reason for that. The system actively hindered women artists, doing everything possible to prevent them from achieving status, no matter their talent.

As you admire the beautiful paintings on display, it’s important to read the accompanying stories. For many women artists, no stories have been recorded, and many of their paintings have disappeared or been disassociated from the women who created them.

Unequal Treatment

Consider the case of Mary Black (1737-1814), who painted a portrait of the physician Messenger Monsey when he was in his seventies. This was her first commission as a painter, and she sought to charge him 25 pounds, which was half the standard price. However, Monsey refused to pay. "I am sorry to find Miss Black is grown so saucy, as it will only embarrass or stop the progress of her reputation and improvement," he declared, even going so far as to call her a "slut."

Often, women artists operated in the shadows of their fathers. While a few managed to establish themselves, they were rare. Angelica Kauffman was among the fortunate few. You can see one of her works at the Stourhead estate, where a banking family paid her well for several pieces.

Angelica Kauffman was one of only two women founders of the Royal Academy in 1768, alongside Mary Moser. The other 34 founders were men. However, Kauffman and Moser were excluded from the council and had no influence over the academy's governance. They were also barred from life drawing classes.

This exclusion was true for all women artists. It was considered improper for women to sit and paint from life models, which was the only way to advance as an artist at the time. Instead, women were expected to paint pastels of flowers and bowls of fruit but not to create oil paintings of people. Embroidery was deemed more appropriate for women.

The exclusion from painting life models was a significant setback for women artists. The message was clear: art was not for women except as a pastime. Serious art was reserved for male painters and sculptors. This exclusion was no different from other art forms, such as music.

Nameless and Friendless

I was particularly struck by a painting by Emily Osborn (1828-1925). It's called "nameless and friendless".

The painting depicts a struggling woman artist attempting to sell one of her works to an unenthusiastic art dealer. On the left, two wealthy men observe the scene. They do not intervene; they seem to disapprove. This image reveals how the system operates: the woman lacks both a reputation and connections; without these, she stands no chance. During my visit to the exhibition, this painting struck me the most—I think I looked at it three times.

Osborn, who was a successful artist, unlike the woman in her painting, expressed her outrage through her work. It is impossible not to be moved by what this picture conveys. The injustice of the self-protective system, the hopelessness of the woman, and the sheer disdain of the male figures expose the system and its consequences.

Break the system

The system began to change when Felix Slade established the Slade School of Fine Arts in 1871. The school accepted women students, and from that point, women artists began to gradually conquer the territory previously denied to them.

However, the battle was not yet won. The Camden Town Group, founded in 1911, excluded women, and Slade artists struggled to get their work exhibited. As a result, these artists organized their own exhibitions, clubs, and channels.

The exhibition features works by Laura Knight, who worked in Cornwall. Her paintings defied norms, receiving both criticism and praise. What is important is that she portrayed women as self-sufficient, self-aware, and independent, which shocked conservatives more than the nudity in her work.

The exhibition ends in the 1920s. It wasn’t until 1922 that the Royal Academy accepted another woman artist, 40 years after her first exhibition there. Annie Swynnerton finally had the opportunity to influence other female artists and work to change the system from within.

This account of the exhibition is incomplete, but I hope it conveys its relevance.

What do I learn from this?

• An exclusive system is powerful and reinforced by those who benefit from maintaining its exclusivity.
• Exclusion is often rooted in conservative ideas, unproven beliefs, and a lack of empathy and respect. It goes beyond mere rules and regulations; there is an entire value system underlying it.
• The consequences for those who are excluded can be severe, ranging from limited freedom to significant hardship.
• To dismantle the system, we need collaboration between people from both the excluded and included groups.
• While members of excluded groups can take many initiatives to improve their situation and work together, there is a risk of creating two separate worlds. The ultimate goal should be equality and fairness.
• Changing the system takes a long time, and there will always be forces attempting to reinstate or continue exclusive practices.
• It requires people with leadership skills, courage and perseverance to change the system. They need to go against the grain.

I highly recommend visiting "Now You See Us" at Tate Britain. The catalog is equally impressive, featuring many beautiful paintings by women artists and, more importantly, their stories. There is still so much injustice, inequality, and unfairness in the world, in the workplace, and in communities. Leaders need to adopt the highest ethical standards and lead the way to a better future, as they have done in the past. The stories of the women and men who tried to change the art scene are inspirational to all of us.