Female photographers

[Max von MeiselMaus]

Here's something that I have been thinking about lately. In the world of painting, female artists are woefully underrepresented in the list of household names: Vanessa Bell, Frida Kahlo, Georgia O'Keefe, Tamara de Lempicka, Paula Rego, and some of those are pushing it in meeting the criterion of "household name". An article in the Guardian states that only 5% of the paintings hung in major permanent collections are by women. However, in photography, there is a better balance; Annie Lebovitz, Dianne Arbus, Julia Margaret Cameron, Dorthea Lange, Cindy Sherman, Eve Arnold, Leni Riefenstahl. I didn't have to try hard to think of those and there are so many more. I found a list of the world's most famous photographers (which must be a pretty subjective selection, but you have to start somewhere) and 20% of the photographers are female. Still not equal, but better than 5%.

So, the question that is going around in my head is, why is the glass ceiling less of an issue in photography than it is in a comparable visual art? It could be that photography is a new art form and Western society became more equal during the twentieth century. So, even though all the painters I cited painted in the 20th century, they were still working in what was likely to have been an established culture of gender expectation and institutionalised sexism. The female photographers, however, entered a brand new discipline, whose implicit rules had yet to be written.

Anyone else thought about this, or do I just have far too much time on my hands?

[chauncey]

I just have far too much time on my hands

I would suggest that you have answered your own question.
I am concerned about a myriad of things...none of which is the sexual orientation, race, cross dresser,
or even if they have switched sexual orientation.

I went into nursing because it was predominantly female...talk about a kid in a candy store.

[Manfred M]

Max - I'd suggest a short history lesson is in order. Gender equality is definitely a Western concept and with the exception of a few other countries; its very much something that is to a large extent North American and (Northern?) European/ Japan, which is definitely a developed country is still very much a society where the men go out to work and the women take care of the home.

Even the "enlightened" countries were very much like that when I was growing up. So far as I remember of the dozen or so houses on the street that I grew up on in Toronto, Canada duringthe 1960's, my mother and one other woman on the street worked, the rest were stay at home mothers.

Photography too was male dominated, I suspect because it was "heavy work". Try picking up a Speed Graphic camera from the 1960's and you'll find it is quite heavy; the film packs were large and heavy too. "Serious" photography was done with view cameras that were quite bulky and heavy and medium format cameras that were not exactly easy to haul around. Vivian Maier shot a TLR Rolleiflex. I'm sure that Erich Solomon with his Ermanox and Henri Cartier-Bresson with his Leica were discounted by "serious" photographers, because they were shooting with small "toy cameras".

Phototography was also considered to be "techie". You had to figure out exposures either by eye or with an hand-held light meter; no auto focus or any automation on the cameras. You had to dial in the shutter speed and aperture manually. Then of course was the smelly, wet (and dark) darkroom. Not necessarily a place for a respectable woman either.

The digital age has certainly helped here. The last three college photography classes I was in were between 25% and 50% female.

[Shadowman]

I would suggest that you have answered your own question.
I am concerned about a myriad of things...none of which is the sexual orientation, race, cross dresser,
or even if they have switched sexual orientation.

I went into nursing because it was predominantly female...talk about a kid in a candy store.

Best chuckle of the day!

[Shadowman]

Some artists (both photographers and painters) gain recognition during their career; others decades after their death. Dorothea Lange is still being discovered by new viewers.

[Manfred M]

I went into nursing because it was predominantly female...talk about a kid in a candy store.

I studied engineering and back in the 70's when I was at university, my mechanical engineering class had 5 women and 95 men. The civil engineering department seemed to have the highest percentage of women, and I don't remember any women taking mining engineering. The nursing school was much like you say, close to 100% women. The two faculties seemed to mix very well socially, and while I can't provide a statistically definitive view; there seem to be an awful lot of engineers married to nurses, at least in my generation.

[lukaswerth]

I am realizing that in this very discussion only males have taken part so far... I am also male, can't help it. But i think the issue is both relevant and interesting.

I could add a few European names of female painters, like Gabriele Münter, Paula Becker-Moderson, Hilma af Klint... but virtually nobody comes to mind before the 19th century. I am quite certain this is due to social factors - painting, print-making, drawing were professions, something to earn your money with, and this was considered a male sphere. There were also no female millers, carpenters, black-smiths or other artisans - and the only female knight I have seen so far is in "Game of Thrones". There were, and are, however, queens, dutchesses, and so on: power merged with family.

In photography, too, I assume that the vast majority of photographers is still male, and this goes for professionals as well as others. Manfred is right by pointing to the technical allure, I think... but photography is a technique exclusively of modernity, sparked by the industrial revolutiuon, of a time when, for better or worse, social conditions were also re-defined, and pretty much from the beginningwas also accessible as a non-professional activity - well, Julia Margaret Cameron was one of a kind in her time, comfortably enough off to pursue her passion... but this was a time when female writers also made it into history - I think Cameron and Virginia Woolf were acquaintances. George Eliot still had to pass as a man.

I am certainly also critical about the modern condition of life and its origins, but gender roles are being newly defined, opening up life chances - and this is not only true for Western capitalism/industrialism/consumerism as such: I am thinking of native Australian Aboriginal art. As an anthropologist I'd say there is some uncertainty concerning traditional gender roles, but in traditional social settings males were initiated into full religious competence, to deal with the dreamtime and their dreamtime ancestors about whom their paintings were and are - and in these days there is a stunning number of first-rate native Australian women who made it to the international art scene by painting what they think needs to be painted (they are by an large concerned with their traditions and their re-interpretations).

So, while we are still all captives of our social/gender roles, there is hope on the horizon, I guess...

Lukas

[Max von MeiselMaus]

Some interesting points raised here. I now wonder if I made myself clear in my post, as some of the responses seem to indicate I didn't. My starting observation is that there are more "successful" female photographers than there are "successful" female painters. My question is "Why?".

Manfred, what you seem to be adding is factors that make the situation even more unlikely. You appear to be stating that photography is more butch than painting. If that is the case, this makes the larger number of known female photographers even more unlikely and deepens the mystery.

William, I appreciate that you personally do not discriminate, but people in general aren't so enlightened, so it remains a pressing concern for many. However, by raising this question, I was not aiming to highlight the problem of women being under-represented in both artistic fields, but instead puzzling over the differences in representation between the two.

Lukas, you raise some interesting points, particularly with respect to photography being a respectable hobby, meaning that women in eras gone by could engage in it without threatening the status of their menfolk. However, painting was also a respected hobby, particularly watercolour. However, how many world-renowned female watercolourists do you know of? I confess to drawing a blank there.

Yes, we are categorised and enabled or disabled because of these various aspects of ourselves, and the under-representation of women in the arts in general is another sign of this. However, I don't want to raise a storm getting into a general discussion about gender discrimination, but am honestly finding it interesting why photography appears to be less affected than painting.

[george013]

Some interesting points raised here. I now wonder if I made myself clear in my post, as some of the responses seem to indicate I didn't. My starting observation is that there are more "successful" female photographers than there are "successful" female painters. My question is "Why?".

Manfred, what you seem to be adding is factors that make the situation even more unlikely. You appear to be stating that photography is more butch than painting. If that is the case, this makes the larger number of known female photographers even more unlikely and deepens the mystery.

William, I appreciate that you personally do not discriminate, but people in general aren't so enlightened, so it remains a pressing concern for many. However, by raising this question, I was not aiming to highlight the problem of women being under-represented in both artistic fields, but instead puzzling over the differences in representation between the two.

Lukas, you raise some interesting points, particularly with respect to photography being a respectable hobby, meaning that women in eras gone by could engage in it without threatening the status of their menfolk. However, painting was also a respected hobby, particularly watercolour. However, how many world-renowned female watercolourists do you know of? I confess to drawing a blank there.

Yes, we are categorised and enabled or disabled because of these various aspects of ourselves, and the under-representation of women in the arts in general is another sign of this. However, I don't want to raise a storm getting into a general discussion about gender discrimination, but am honestly finding it interesting why photography appears to be less affected than painting.

As model/subject they are over-represented.

George

[Manfred M]

Some interesting points raised here. I now wonder if I made myself clear in my post, as some of the responses seem to indicate I didn't. My starting observation is that there are more "successful" female photographers than there are "successful" female painters. My question is "Why?".

I guess perhaps I was not clear enough. Painting and other graphic arts are thousands of years old (look the decorative figures from ancient Egypt). Even the more "modern" painters the we are familiar with; the European ones really got going in the Renaissance started in the 14th century. In Europe, at least, the woman's role was to raise children and run the household, whereas the man would have the trade and bring in income. The paintings we see in the major collections were done by professional painters; they would have gone through an apprenticeship under a known master before they branched out on their own. There are many images in art galleries that come from "the school of Rembrandt", i.e painted by his apprentices, but under the direction of the master.

Photography, especially small camera photography is a much more modern art form that did not really start to come out until two things happened. George Eastman (Kodak) started mass producing roll film in the late 1800's and the Ernst Leitz company started mass producing small precision cameras (1924). WW II had women working in factories while men were fighting in the war. After the war the men came home to many this is the turning point where the equality of the sexes really started to develop; all of a sudden the barriers started to come down (over a long time) and women started getting more into photography, which had (with minor exceptions) been a "man's world". Then comes 1954 and the Leica M3 (considered by many to be the first "modern" camera), and the timing was right again this supported more women photographing. Add the innovations that started in Japan (primarily Nikon and Canon companies), which produced far less expensive cameras than the traditional German ones, and the popularity of photography increased and reached more people because it was affordable. With photographers the career path seems to be hobbyist first that led to turning professional later.

So why are there more well known women photographers than painters. Simply because the tools and times were right and photography, (especially in the roll-film mode), is a very recent development (less than 100 years ago).

[Max von MeiselMaus]

Manfred, thanks for that, but have a look at my initial reflection on the situation, as it is relevant to yours. The twentieth century saw an increase in gender equality in the west, thanks to the suffragette movement and the effect of world wars on the workforce. We would therefore expect to see increased equality in participation and recognition of female artists, who had been sidelined up until then. However, it is only photography that seems to show the benefit of this. So, you definitely have something there, but it is not the whole story. There is a missing link in the argument.

However, it does bring me back to my original assertion as currently being the most likely, that the additional boost given to female participation in photography was because of the newness of the discipline and that fact that conservative gender rules has less of a chance to take root in it, because of the changing political landscape that existed as photography emerged.

I would still be interested to hear of any other theories on this.

[chauncey]

William, I appreciate that you personally do not discriminate

I guess that I failed to make myself clear...I do discriminate...when it's something that I care about.
I just don't give a rat's behind who/what took the picture or did the painting.

However, in perusing the responses, I might suggest that Lukas, with his background in cultural
anthropology, might be one that would have my attention.

[Manfred M]

Max - I think you are still missing my point.

Painting - Timeline 1300 - 2015, most of the images come from a time well before females were painting (700 years).

Modern Photography - Timeline 1920 - 2015 (95 years) - the period of male dominated period is far shorter.

When I look at the paintings (water colours, oils, acrylics, charcoal) we have purchased and hung in the house (all are modern and collected within the past 30 years), 14 pieces in total, 6 of these were done by female artists, i.e. 43% of the total. I'm writing about pieces bought in art galleries, rather than at craft fairs.

When we tour galleries when we travel; I would say that women painters make up to 40% of the works in some galleries

[tbob]

I will just throw this out as a proposal. I have zero qualifications as a social anthropologist, some as a biologist. This is just a theory and may be complete codswallop.

Could it be status seeking? Males of most species, humans included, are driven to raise their status to attract females. Males are highly competitive in any endeavor they see as engendering status. If a man has a high degree of interest in photography he will compete in this area. He will be willing to expend a great deal of time and energy.

Females seek status as well, but are less driven to stomp all over the competition to be the best and are more cooperation seeking to raise their social status with other females. Social interpersonal skills are more highly rated in female society than in male. Large expenditures of time and energy on solitary pursuits are less important.

Why photography over painting? Painting takes time as a solitary occupation and is asocial. Photography far less time to produce the endproduct and can be done in a social environment . A women may not see the time and effort expended alone painting as warranted to achieve status. As a pastime perhaps, but not as a life goal.

I know little about famous photographers. Are famous female photographers street and human image photographers (social) or landscape (asocial)?

[Max von MeiselMaus]

Max - I think you are still missing my point.

Painting - Timeline 1300 - 2015, most of the images come from a time well before females were painting (700 years).

Modern Photography - Timeline 1920 - 2015 (95 years) - the period of male dominated period is far shorter.

Manfred, have a look at the female painters I have identified in my list. All are twentieth century, so all were working at the same time as the female photographers, yet there are far fewer of them that are known names. If we dig deeper and look at the stat that I cited regarding number of female painters hung in major galleries (and great that you are buying work by female artists, but unfortunately the major galleries are not), we do need to look back in time. However, from my experience of gallery hopping, I am prepared to bet any amount of money that the vast majority of female painters that make up that 5% are also twentieth century painters. The glass ceiling in painting was all but impenetrable before then.

Trevor, that is an intriguing proposal. The vast majority of known female photographers photograph people, as portraitists, fashion photographers, documentary photographers etc. Very few are landscape photographers. So, yes, definitely a social slant there. However, so were the painters, who had sitters, and probably had them for longer than the photographers did, so more social contact.

I am liking the way that line of thinking is going, though, and will give it some thought.

[lukaswerth]

...

Lukas, you raise some interesting points, particularly with respect to photography being a respectable hobby, meaning that women in eras gone by could engage in it without threatening the status of their menfolk. However, painting was also a respected hobby, particularly watercolour. However, how many world-renowned female watercolourists do you know of? I confess to drawing a blank there.

Yes, we are categorised and enabled or disabled because of these various aspects of ourselves, and the under-representation of women in the arts in general is another sign of this. However, I don't want to raise a storm getting into a general discussion about gender discrimination, but am honestly finding it interesting why photography appears to be less affected than painting.

Found a list of 20th women artists on Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._women_artists

There seems no list for the 19th century, but 4 female water colorists are identified. With regard to "world-renowned female watercolorists", I would have been able, from the top of my hat, to identify just two male ones: Mallord William Turner and August Macke. I am certain there are more, I know, I read about some myself, but their names escape me right now, and still, water color as a professional serious medium seems not all that common.

I am actually not certain that there is such a difference between women in photography and painting once you look at the media from the time photography was invented onwards, and take other social parameters into account (who could afford to paint, and who could affford to take a photograph in which times?), and look at the dynamics of the media - some time ago I read in a book on modern art that photography had/has in these days taken precedence over painting.

Lukas

[Max von MeiselMaus]

I went to look for a comparable list of 20th century male artists. It doesn't exist! There is a page on 20th century artists generally, with 1,020 individual artist pages linked, but I am not the one to break that down by gender. I have a life to lead.

There are many, many world renowned artists who worked in watercolour. The Victoria and Albert alone has rooms of them. No, probably not as widely known as those painting in oils, but still popular, particularly with the Victorians.

Interesting point about methods of distribution and exhibition being different in the pre photographic era, but I am not sure how that applies differentially according to gender. However, economics might certainly have an impact. For that to be an element, we would have to start from the premise that there is/was a difference between the genders in financial position, presumably with women having reduced access to wealth. I can't argue with that, particularly historically. We would then have to argue that photography is a cheaper art form than painting. Now, most of the established names in painting attended art school. Many/most of the established names in photography didn't (this one is a bit more tenuous, as I know more about art history with respect to painting than I do to photography, but have read some claims that most successful photographers are self taught). So, does this mean that photography became a democratic art form, accessible to those who couldn't afford or weren't permitted to go to art school? That is an interesting point. Equipment would still have to be bought, but that is less of a time and money commitment than college.

Thanks folks. This is raising some interesting questions.

[george013]

Found a list of 20th women artists on Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._women_artists

There seems no list for the 19th century, but 4 female water colorists are identified. With regard to "world-renowned female watercolorists", I would have been able, from the top of my hat, to identify just two male ones: Mallord William Turner and August Macke. I am certain there are more, I know, I read about some myself, but their names escape me right now, and still, water color as a professional serious medium seems not all that common.

I am actually not certain that there is such a difference between women in photography and painting once you look at the media from the time photography was invented onwards, and take other social parameters into account (who could afford to paint, and who could affford to take a photograph in which times?), and look at the dynamics of the media - some time ago I read in a book on modern art that photography had/has in these days taken precedence over painting.

Lukas

Another list of the 16th and 17th century. One of them was subject of a thread here, Clara Peters.
http://womenshistory.about.com/od/art/

George

[Max von MeiselMaus]

Another list of the 16th and 17th century. One of them was subject of a thread here, Clara Peters.
http://womenshistory.about.com/od/art/

George

So frustrating that they don't do comparable lists for male painters from the same time, or definitive lists of male versus female photographers. If someone were prepared to count them up, that would give us some solid data. I am content with the "5% of paintings hung in major galleries are by women" stat, as that came from a reputable source. However, my accompanying observation that there are a greater number of known female photographers is largely anecdotal, backed up by counting names in a random list of the best photographers of all time. And I do like a good stat.

[Max von MeiselMaus]

And an interesting and relevant snippet from another reputable source (Fortune, from this March).

Dorothea Lange, Annie Leibovitz, and Cindy Sherman are household names to the art-friendly. But while women have trained as great photographers since the turn of the 20th century, photography has been a predominately male profession. In 1983, only 20% of photographers were women. Today, the gender balance in the job is about 50/50, according to a 2012 Bureau of Labor Statistics report. That 50/50 split does not extend to pay, though. According to a report released in 2008 by the National Endowment for the Arts, the median income for male photographers, as of 2005, was $35,000. The median income for female photographers was less than half as much, $16,300.

Now that is pause for thought. The proportion of women working as a photographer has increased wildly in the last thirty years, yet the pay gap is HUGE! That is on one side heartening, and on the other depressing.

The same source that supplied that article also stated that 60% of photographers under 35 are women. This means that, in decades to come, it is likely that female professional photographers will outnumber male.

I am not sure I can find info on the UK, but will look.