| Budget Amount *help |
¥1,750,000 (Direct Cost: ¥1,600,000、Indirect Cost: ¥150,000)
Fiscal Year 2007: ¥650,000 (Direct Cost: ¥500,000、Indirect Cost: ¥150,000)
Fiscal Year 2006: ¥1,100,000 (Direct Cost: ¥1,100,000)
|
|---|
| Research Abstract |
The purpose of this research project is to show how feminism art history has mystified woman artist, by analyzing the history of criticism on Italian painter, Artemisia Gentileschi (1593-1653) and following the process of her becoming the icon of feminism art history in 1970s.
In the latter half of the nineteenth century, literature on woman artists began to appear. From the analysis of its descriptions on Artemisia are abstracted these three typical discourse; 1) she was excellent in portraiture, 2) she excelled Orazio, her father and history painter in portraits, 3) she was famous for her flamboyant love affairs. The origins of these discourses are traced and collated with the outcome from latest scholarship on Artemisia. From these research and analyses, it is proved that most writers on Artemisia referred to the same source, which regarded her as a portrait painter. This misunderstanding was strengthened by the belief that woman painters were good at portrait, but they did not have an ability to be a history painter.
In nineteenth century, portrait was still ranked low in the hierarchy of the genre, and writers on woman artists said that not a single woman entitled to be placed in front rank among 'great artists.' But in the first half of the twentieth century, reevaluation of the Baroque art begun, and Artemisia also got high estimation as a follower of Caravaggio and thought to be not a portrait but history painter. So in the 70s feminist art historians looking to 'a great woman artist' were attracted by Artemisia, and monographs on Artemisia were begun to appear from the 80s. On the other hand, when feminism art historians made 'hero' of her and set her on a pedestal as 'an icon of feminism art history,' they made new, another myth of woman artist.
|
