The world of art history is undergoing a quiet revolution, one that shines a light on the often-overlooked female artists of the Baroque period. The exhibition 'Unforgettable: Women Artists from Antwerp to Amsterdam, 1600-1750' at the Ghent Museum of Fine Arts (MSK) is a testament to this shift, celebrating the works of over 40 female artists from the Low Countries. This exhibition is not just a collection of paintings; it's a powerful statement, challenging the notion that 'old masters were men.'
One of the most intriguing figures in this exhibition is Judith Leyster, an artist from the Dutch Golden Age. Leyster's self-portrait, painted at the age of 21, is a masterpiece of confidence and skill. What makes her story particularly fascinating is the way she was initially forgotten after her death, her works attributed to male contemporaries or simply dismissed as 'unknown masters.' This raises a deeper question: why have women artists been consistently overlooked throughout art history?
The answer lies in the 19th century, when art history became a discipline. Art historians, mainly men, decided what was good art and what was worth writing about. Women artists, when they had a walk-on role, were deemed imitators. This fate befell Rachel Ruysch, whose floral still lifes were admired for their detail, but were dismissed as derivative. The 19th century also saw painting become the apex of the art museum, overshadowing the applied arts that women excelled at, such as paper-cutting, calligraphy, and lace-making.
The exhibition also highlights the unconventional decisions made by some women artists. Louise Hollandine, for instance, converted to Catholicism and entered a convent to maintain her artistic freedom. Hollandine's story is a powerful reminder of the constraints placed on women artists in the 17th century. Her decision to become a nun, rather than marry her nephew as sought by her family, was a bold move that allowed her to continue her artistic pursuits.
What makes this exhibition particularly significant is the way it challenges our understanding of art history. It forces us to reconsider the notion that 'old masters were men.' It also prompts us to ask why women artists have been consistently overlooked. The answer, it seems, lies in the biases and assumptions of art historians and the societal norms of the time. But as the exhibition shows, women artists were not only skilled and innovative, but also economically and artistically valuable.
In my opinion, this exhibition is a crucial step in the right direction. It not only celebrates the works of female artists, but also challenges the biases and assumptions that have long shaped our understanding of art history. As Frederica Van Dam, the co-curator of the exhibition, says, 'you get an impression of how valuable they were for the economic and artistic blossoming at the time.' This is a powerful statement, and one that should resonate with art lovers and historians alike. The exhibition is a reminder that art history is not just about the past, but also about the present and the future. It's a call to action, urging us to continue the conversation and to ensure that the works of female artists are not only celebrated, but also preserved and made accessible to all.
