Exhibition of the week Now You See Us
Tate Britain, London SW1 (020-7887 8888, tate.org.uk). Until 13 October
“The past five or so years have seen an explosion of interest in the history of women’s art,” said Gabrielle Schwarz in The Daily Telegraph. Not so long ago, women were at best regarded as peripheral to art history. But in recent years, countless exhibitions, books and podcasts have appeared to “correct the record” – the latest being this new show at Tate Britain. Now You See Us brings together some 200 paintings, sculptures, prints and photographs by more than 100 female artists who worked in Britain between the 16th century and the immediate aftermath of the First World War. It seeks to explore the complicated story of women’s role in the teaching and practice of art, examining the obstacles and prejudices that stood in their path and the ways in which they circumvented them. Ranging from relatively familiar names, including Artemisia Gentileschi, Angelica Kauffman and Gwen John, to hitherto forgotten figures, it is an “impressively expansive” effort.
The show brings “whole legions” of unknown women artists “marching out of the shadows”, said Mark Hudson in The Independent. These women were not “amateurs” but professionals who forged their careers “in the face of prejudice”. Gentileschi, for instance, came to Britain to work at the court of Charles I. Her Self-Portrait as the Allegory of Painting (c.1638) sees her “intent on her craft, paintbrush in hand”, underlining her professionalism. Yet Gentileschi was also exceptional: a painter with the licence to be creative. The problem is that little here is “truly original, let alone groundbreaking”. Certain works from the 17th and 18th century, such as Maria Cosway’s “huge” and entertainingly eccentric 178182 likeness of the Duchess of Devonshire dressed as the Roman Moon goddess, show some imagination. But many of the portraits are “stultifyingly conventional”. They also do not give a sense “of a distinctive women’s way of painting”, until the later periods – with, for instance, Laura Knight’s conventional but “pensive” pictures of women on Cornish clifftops.
I found this show “a spirited (let no man say ‘feisty’) survey of female achievement”, said Laura Freeman in The Times. It reminds us how difficult it was for women to make a career in art. In 1770, for instance, the Royal Academy banned many art forms accessible to women – including needlework, cut paper and “any such baubles” – from its exhibitions. Styles in which women specialised, including pastel and watercolour, were “disdained”. All this is communicated through captions that are “informative and interesting” rather than preachy or “antagonistic”. I particularly enjoyed the still lifes: Mary Delany’s (1700-88) “austere” but delicate floral cut-outs alongside, much later, “radically different” and “equally irrepressible” flower paintings by the early 20th century artists Ethel Sands and Vanessa Bell. The exhibition is not perfect – the curators have tried to pack too much in, and the Victorian work is cloyingly sentimental – but it’s an “energising and entertaining” tribute to “female achievement in the arts”.