PatrickPhotos

I have to apologise for the lack of posts due to the pressure of the day job. There haven’t been enough hours in the day to give this project the attention it deserves and I hope things will start to improve, at least for a short while.

In the little spare time I have had, I have been reading A World of Our Own – Women as Artists by Frances Borzello.

The book covers some of the ground in the TV series The Story of Women and Art but in more depth as you would expect from the printed medium. It describes in chronological order the hurdles female artists had to face as well as the increasing opportunities as women were accepted in a man’s world.

The interesting thing I found while reading this book was that artists from the past faced similar problems to today’s artists – a good education in the technical aspects of the craft, managing your workflow and having a well run studio to earn a living wage and networking with the right people to get to where you want to be.

It could be argued that the lack of opportunities was just a reflection of the wider culture at the time. The art world isn’t the only industry that in today’s eyes has an embarrassing history for women. I do wonder if we will look back to today with a sense of shame at how women are being treated by art critics, dealers, publishers and others in the art establishment.

Concluding the book is a very positive final paragraph. There ARE female artists who have given us a fresh perspective on the way we view the world around us, despite all the problems. Without question women have to work harder to make a success and you do have to admire the ones that have made it to the top.

Looking back on the artists I have reviewed, six have been men – Rankin, Freud, Ralph Gibson, Brandt and David Bailey – while two have been women – Annie Leibovitz and Jayne Parker. It may just be coincidence but the works I have admired the most are by the women.

The final episode of The Story of Women and Art, written and presented by Professor Amanda Vickery, was broadcast on BBC 2 tonight and it has been a really fascinating three-part series. Exploring not just painted art but other creative crafts by female artists who have a significant story to tell.

In the first episode I was really surprised that there are works by female artists in store rather than on display. The presenter discusses this issue more in this article on the Guardian website.

Working on this project, I very much rely on curators of art galleries and art critics to point out the things that I should discover. Unlike a full-time art or art history student, I can’t dedicate a large proportion of my time to exploring what is out there. I have to trust others to guide me on what is worth spending time on. The job of art galleries and art critics is to navigate a path for those of us who are less well informed about what work there is.

So it is disappointing to discover that a large majority of art galleries in the UK have a higher ratio of work on display created by men than women. And why is this important? There is a real danger of a one-sided view if most of the visual art around us is from a male perspective. I also wonder how much influence this has on the few female artists who do succeed, whether the work they create panders consciously or subconsciously to the male norm. For me, the most interesting art challenges my own views and seeing the world from a female perspective is no bad thing.

This series has also given me a greater appreciation of some of the historic works of art on display. In one episode there was a discussion between the presenter and a curator from the National Portrait Gallery on the sculptor Anne Seymour Damer. This artist had to endure gossip and innuendo about her personal life in what could be argued was a way to discredit her talent.

You would hope that leaping forward to today things have changed for the better. It is sad to read that some of the online criticism about this series is directed at Professor Amanda Vickery. Clothing choices and presenting style have very little to do with the amount of research needed to create these programmes. If an intelligent woman promoting the work of undervalued female creative talent is rattling the cage of people who disagree with her, then I say Professor Amanda Vickery is probably on the right track and should keep going.

I do hope that the BBC commissions a further series of programmes. The artists featured in this set of programmes are just a drop in the ocean. And if they don’t, I hope Sky Arts or another TV channel can see what potential there is.

I’m not 100% sure how I came across the Royal Society of Portrait Painters Annual Exhibition at the Mall Galleries but I’m glad I did.

My only problem right now is that the day job is taking up most of my time. So a leisurely view of the work on show is out of the question. For now, I have the catalogue to keep me company. But there is no real substitute for seeing the works in the flesh.

I do hope I will be able to go before it closes on 23 May 2014.

16 MAY 2014 Managed to take time out this afternoon for a leisurely visit of the exhibition, which was the right thing to do. Taking a bit of time to consider each piece is the only way to do it justice. To me there is little point in rushing round the works on display.

I’m always amazed how the execution of a portrait can be so varied. From the materials used, to what to have as a background and even the shape of the piece. Viewing the work at the proportions that the artist intended is the raison d’être of an art gallery. The internet and publications can’t compare with being face to face.

Picking a favourite is a really difficult choice. Tamsin Greig by Matthew Garrard and Deryugina by Jonny Shaw stood out for me. The work of David Cobley was also of interest.

The more I think about it, the more I don’t really want to pick a favourite. Some of the work may have been commissioned by the sitter and if they are happy that is all that matters. And the other reason is that it really is an impossible task. If you get a chance to visit the gallery, you’ll know what I mean.

18 MAY 2014 I had no intention of commenting on the work Dr Victoria N. Bateman by Anthony Connolly that is on display at the exhibition. However, an article by Zoe Pilger has made me reassess this.

For those who may be reading this who didn’t get a chance to view the work at the Mall Galleries, the piece is of an unclothed sitter with a light blue background and is not quite life size in height. With one arm behind her back and the other by her side, nothing is hidden from view. The pattern of the background is interesting in that there is some perspective to it which reminds me of bathroom tiling.

In the catalogue and online, Victoria Bateman gives her reasons for the portrait. And at the time of writing, there are over 670 comments on Victoria’s reasoning, some of which agree with Zoe Pilger on the artistic merits of the work, i.e. that it is nothing new.

What is interesting is that an internet search for Dr Victoria N. Bateman brings up more articles about the painting than her work as an economist. Bearing in mind that the painting is a birthday gift for herself, there is no real reason why the work should please other people.

Also on display at the exhibition is a fully clothed Shirley Pearce, Vice Chancellor of Loughborough University by Alastair Adams, which appears to be on loan from that institution. Clearly this piece is for “work” purposes and Victoria’s piece is under the “personal” category. Two totally different types of commission.

I am grateful for Victoria Bateman allowing Anthony Connolly to submit this “personal” piece with his other pieces that made it into the exhibition. It could have been so easy for permission not to have been given.

I do wonder if a female artist would have executed the portrait in a different way. Another question for me is the significance of the plant/flower in the corner of the painting.