Back
 ADR  Vol.2 No.1 , February 2014
From the Trap of Difference to That of Excellence: The Women Artists, Their Works and the Artistic Field
Abstract: The works produced both by ethnic artists and by women artists lead us to suspect that either the aesthetic sensibility of art experts has not evolved sufficiently or that it is not “pure” enough to free them from the load of prejudices surrounding such works and those who produce them. To illustrate this problem, we will first offer two substantially different examples. The first concerns Report No. 8 commissioned by Emakunde, the Basque Women’s Institute (Spain) and published in the mid-nineteen nineties. The second refers to the Kunstkompass, a tool used to establish the ranking of the one hundred most internationally recognised artists. Next, we will examine the four clearly ranked circles of recognition existing in the artistic field. Finally, to demonstrate up to what point the position of women artists in the artistic field is that of inside yet out, we will analyse the content of two articles published in mid-February 2008 in the Babelia supplement of the El País spanish newspaper about two exhibitions of works by women artists.
Cite this paper: Méndez, L. (2014) From the Trap of Difference to That of Excellence: The Women Artists, Their Works and the Artistic Field. Art and Design Review, 2, 1-5. doi: 10.4236/adr.2014.21001.
References

[1]   Azcona, J. (1996). Teoría y práctica en antropología social. Bilbao: UPV/EHU.

[2]   Bourdieu, P. (1977). La production de la croyance: Contribution à une économie des biens symboliques. Actes de la Recherche en Scien- ces Sociales, 13, 13-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.3406/arss.1977.3493

[3]   Bowness, A. (1989). The conditions of success. How the modern artist rises to fame. London: Thames & Hudson.

[4]   Chadwick, W. (1992). Mujer, arte y sociedad. Barcelona: Destino.

[5]   Clifford, J. (1995). Dilemas de la cultura. Barcelona: Gedisa.

[6]   Guillaumin, C. (1992). “Question de différence” in guillauMin, C. Sexe, race et pratique du pouvoir. L’idée de nature (pp. 83-106). Paris: C?té-femmes.

[7]   Heinich, N. (1996). être artiste. Les transformations du statut des peintres et des sculpteurs. Paris: Klincksieck.

[8]   Heinich, N. (1998). Des conflits autour de l’art contemporain. Le Débat, 98, 72-86. http://dx.doi.org/10.3917/deba.098.0072

[9]   Héritier, F. (1996). Masculino/femenino. El pensamiento de la diferen- cia. Barcelona: Ariel.

[10]   Méndez, L. (2009). Antropología del campo artístico. Del arte primiti- vo [...] al contemporáneo. Madrid: Síntesis (currently being printed).

[11]   Michaud, Y. (1999). Critères esthétiques et jugement de go?t. N?mes: J. Chambon.

[12]   Mosquera, G. (2001). Algunas notas sobre globalización y curadoría in- ternacional. Revista de Occidente, 238, 17-30.

[13]   Moulin, R. (1992). L’Artiste, l’institution et le marché. Paris: Flam- marion.

[14]   Quemin, A. (2002). L’art contemporain international: Entre les insti- tutions et le marché (Le rapport disparu). Paris: J. Chambon/ Artprice.

[15]   Schwimmer, E. (1995). El signo y su lectura. In L. Méndez (Ed.), Antropología de la producción artística. Madrid: Síntesis.

 
 
Top