Negotiating the art world…
Sep 5th, 2007 by maoch
How do women negotiate within the art world in early modern Italy? Can we make any generalizations? Keeping in mind that generalizations can be too broad!
In Vasari’s Life of Properzia de’ Rossi, he writes that Properzia, “through her husband as intermediary,” applied to the cathedral committee for an opportunity to work on the facade of the cathedral of Bologna. But was Properzia married? How do we connect what we know of the “facts” of Properzia’s life (the court records), with the “life” Vasari writes for her? Could Vasari not “imagine” — and therefore not “write” — about an unattached woman artist?
When we look at Lavinia Fontana — also an artist of Bologna — we’ll discover that there are many more “facts” known about this artist, and that Lavinia “negotiated” in a very particular manner in the art world of patrons and commissions just a few decades after Properzia.
What language do we, as art historians, use to describe, interpret, and analyze the many and varied ways artists survive as artists?
Although I haven’t done any particular research on her yet, I think that Properzia was clever enough to get someone to pose as her husband or to create a forged letter as her “husband” in order to get a commission. I think that she knew how things worked in the art world and although she wasn’t willing to change herself to get ahead, she was willing to lie which many people do in this day and age. I also think that Vasari knew about the interworkings of the art world and what society thought of unmarried women, so he told a little lie in order to escape the criticism of praising a woman like Properzia (unmarried and seeking commissions on her own).
Lavinia Fontana had a much easier time starting out because she had a husband. However, I think that her success and commissions came from word of mouth. She established a relationship with patrons so much so that they recommended her to their friends. This is something you wouldn’t need a man for. She also identified with her patrons whereas Properzia seemed unpredictable in her moods and behavior.
What a great idea that Properzia “invented” a husband as a strategy to manage her life and work in Bologna. This “invention” would suggest a degree of agency on her part that doesn’t appear in Vasari’s account of her Life, where Properzia’s emotions set her on a path of self-destruction. How might we connect Properzia’s “invented” husband to her court records, where she is described as a “concubine”?
If Properzia “invented” a husband, I wonder what her contemporaries knew or thought of this. It may have been more comfortable for them to deal with Properzia’s imaginary husband than with Properzia as a woman on her own.
Are there any examples in 15th- and 16th-c. Europe of women with “invented” husbands? A literary source here would be fascinating…either to support Properzia’s “invention” or that of Vasari. Maybe there’s something in mythology? Or the Bible?
First I would like to comment on the utube video…what a unique and beautiful creation, I loved it! In response to women negotiating in the art world: I think it’s necessary to consider the role of Fontana’s father in her career. He seems to have had a tight grasp on all aspects of her life, primarily her personal life such as her marriage, but also on her business affairs. Indeed she had great talent and obviously desired to pursue a career as an artist, which proved successful. Lavinia’s hard work and talent are most definately evident. But I have to ask myself, would she have been able to accomplish all that she did without her father’s influence? In Properzia’s case, the idea of her “inventing” a husband has been suggested. If this was in fact the case, then it really seems to me that women artists active in Europe in the 15th and 16th centuries had to have a man, whether it be husband or father, either directly involved in or supporting their careers.
I think the assumption that Properzia did not “change” her art may be flawed. While I agree that it would probably take some form of trickery for an unattached woman to receive a cathedral comission, which may have trickled down through Vasari rightly or wrongly as an imaginary husband, this leads me to believe that she would be required to be equally nimble with her artistic conventions: considering the unprecedented appearance of a woman artist on a cathedral facade, was the seemingly anti-female subject matter a deliberate choice or a concession made to prove her “good” (meaning not subversive) intentions?
Additionally, much has been made in class about what her masculinized depiction Potiphar’s wife says about her as a woman artist, but, if it was sculpted by a male artist, we would likely describe it as an homage to Michelangelo. Is it possible that she masculinized her female figures in accordance with the notorious machismo of the established masters at the time?
Women artists within families…It’s fascinating that Prospero Fontana saw Lavinia, his daughter, as such an investment…she was his retirement…she was also his “creation” and as such was the means by which his name would be remembered into the future — and this was important in 16th-c. Italy.
Joseph and Potiphar’s Wife…Is Properzia’s version of this subject “anti-female”? While the narrative certainly casts a negative light on WOMAN, Properzia’s particular woman seems much more an individual rather than a type, especially in comparison with Bronzino’s work. Is Properzia telling this story from a different point of view?
One thing that I have learned from the art history courses I’ve taken over the years is that trends (prehaps “trends” isn’t the right word here, but its the only one I can think of) are big. Artists are always looking to their contemporaries and past masters to guide what they paint and how they paint it. While this idea is less pronounced now than it was throughout other times in history, I think its very apparent in Properzia’s version of Joseph and Potiphar’s Wife. I think Rob (i hope i can call you Rob…) is correct in his assertion that in her work, Properzia is paying homage to the greats like Michaelangelo, and is less concerned with accurately portraying the female body. She does this to build up her credibility. People who saw the work would probably say something like, “Gasp! A woman who appreciates Michaelangelo! Well, she must be good for something then.” That is, something more than cleaning house and popping out babies, although I think we all know just how essential that is (kidding). Also, after bringing up my question in class about why women would want to portray that subject, I realize now that it was probably not by choice and upon examination of other works, have decided that Properzia and Artemisia’s works are as kind to the female figure as they can be. In regards to Molly’s comment in class about some women being okay with objectifying their bodies, while that may be true, I don’t believe it is the case here, especially in Artemisia’s circumstances. We all know that Artemisia was part of rape trials and it is my belief that after such a traumatizing experience, she would not be one to condone the objectification of the female body. While we know few facts about Properzia’s life, I feel like such a strong, independent woman would champion women, not objectify them. So while objectification might be condoned by some women artists and women in general, I belive that for these two, that is definitely not the case.
I find it interesting to say that Lavinia was the creation of her father, Prospero. We could say that her father took what could have been a negative aspect of Lavinia’s life (not that being a painter was a negative thing for a woman at the time, but a career was not particularly encouraged) and spun it for his own benefit. Her successes were his successes and despite the fact that he was extremely controlling, it is probably due to him that she has the level of fame that she does today. Without her father to direct her career, Lavinia would most likely not have been able to secure the commissions that she did during her life.
As we had discussed in class, women negotiated first by proving they can create art just as well as men, but then second to convince some male figure in their life (father, husband, relative) to help her be allowed to AGAIN prove herself, only this time to the greater community.
Someone mentioned that her husband was perhaps her invention. I would fault neither records nor Vasari at the uncertainty of the matter. While he wrote about her husband, but records do not confirm this, I don’t think that it’s because he could not accept it, but rather because the general public would not accept it as readily and it would not only draw negative attention to Properzia, but also possibly to Vasari for featuring her as a woman artist.
I believe that the language that we describe artists’ survival is generalized to both their and our times, as well as ignorant to all the details that we could know are true about the artists and their work. Especially when accounts of various third-parties do not always match, such as the marriage of Properzia according to official records and Vasari. Had the official records not been accessed, we would assume that she did have a husband, but our feelings of how she survived would change if this was somehow revealed later on. When we become more seasoned art historians, while our personal accounts may never be direct, with enough other essays or information cross-referenced can grant us more certainty. I suppose my basis is more philosophy than history and how it is difficult to determine truth of something on the accounts of others.
Both Dr. Och and Nicole bring up important points about the whys and hows of Propezias portrayal of the loaded subject of Joseph and Potiphar’s Wife. I definately feel that Propezia’s portrayal of the subject was not “anti-female,” but the selection of an almost inherently anti-female myth does seem curious. This begs the question “Why?,” and regardless of the validity of the resulting speculation, it makes for an interesting discussion. The major possibilities as I see them:
1. The subject was decided for her in advance, perhaps by the powers that be to ensure that any inordinately pro-feminine sentiment would be squelched by the contradictory mythological topic. Perhaps there was some fear of what an apparently strong-willed woman might do with such a prominent, public artistic forum.
2. The subject was decided by Propezia in a career-conscious effort to prove herself within the anti-female confines of the art world. This would imply that she was trying to buck the assumption that an empowered woman might be dangerous to the status quo . This would be analagous to how today, otherwise feminist women tend to dodge such a title in fear of being stigmatized and ignored for “controversial” beliefs.
3. The subject was intentionally depicted by Propezia in an effort to re-write the anti-femine myth from a more sympathetic or at least more nuanced point of view. This could include a deliberate attempt to correct a percieved wrong or simply a different personal perception of the literary source. Or,
4. The subject was depicted by Propezia becuase she felt some sort of fascination or intense personal connection to it. This seems to be a particularly popular notion given the interesting lovesickness Vasari attributes to her.
Likely, the true answer is probably some mixture of the above possibilities, and, unless documents miraculously surface to confirm it, we will never really know.
This is where a contract would be wonderful to have! At least, it might tell us what the commissioners (the cathedral works committee) required of the artist. Did the committee stipulate this biblical (careful…not mythological) subject? Or did they present a few options for Properzia to choose from? The fact that “Joseph and Potiphar’s Wife” was not placed on the cathedral facade is also a point to consider. Was Properzia’s portrayal of the subject not to their liking? Did they not like her style? Without a contract, and without access to Properzia (who may or may not tell the “truth”), we can only speculate. And clearly…we can do a lot of speculation!!!