Art Canon

My mind has been blown - the old painting masters Cézanne, Rembrandt and Monet are not all of what I thought they were. I recently discovered that the traditional art historical canon is biased and has created an unrepresentative view of creativity and artistic styles. It has left out entire groups of people only later to place them in subgroups. The traditional canon for art history has favored upper class European white male artists. It is interesting to see that art history has been governed by a select group who overtime decided what qualifies as great works of art and artistic genius. The definition leaves out women and minorities who have not had access to the same resources as men did such as supplies or education but even so they were able to create with items more accessible to them. Yet they are left out of traditional canon as if they never existed. How can we understand culture, history and politics by ignoring these groups of people? - Art is not only a piece of individual expression but a part of culture. Analyzing pieces can help us understand things about society that we may not be able to glean from other sources for history is not rigid but based on interpretation of primary sources; newspaper articles, books, media and artwork created in different time periods. We have to interpret these things in conjunction with the lived experience of the individual who created them. Which means for art understanding their unique identity and how it may have played into what they chose to depict in their artwork.

The good news is that Yale is scraping the old canon for a more inclusive canon with the hope that other universities will follow suit. Perhaps it has taken this long for this change because they are having trouble unifying and determining what information and knowledge they can assume is universal between Art History departments across different schools.

When I say that the old masters are not all of who I thought they were it does not mean I can't learn from them or what I have learned is entirely useless, it simply means that it may not have as much weight as I previously thought - I am taking them off of the pedestal so that I can discover and uncover artists who have not been given attention. It only makes me want to broaden my perspective and learn from others who have great skills although they may not have fit the traditional cut of what great art means. Here are some pieces from artists I have discovered so far, past and present: