• antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    1 day ago

    The actual article seems quite positive about her art. Why that title was written to sound so dismissive, I do not really understand, it’s not at all in line with the content. If her art was thought to be so irrelevant, it wouldn’t merit an article in the first place. Maybe it was meant to be positive by conveying her non-academic background and “natural”, intuitive approach to painting (I think that naïve/outsider art was already gaining some positive interest at the time).

    It’s interesting that the article was written by a woman too.

    • Akasazh@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      11 hours ago

      One has to keep in mind that they were in the USA because he had commissions to make murals, therefore treating him as the arrived artist and her as an enthusiast isn’t technically wrong.

      Also covering her artistry isn’t something a newspaper would do, if they didn’t think that there wasn’t something exciting about het art.

      It sounds dismissive, but within the frame of a patriarchal society the article is actually quite positive of her works and may have contributed to het being taken seriously as an artist further down the road.

    • gramie@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      1 day ago

      Titles are typically written by editors, not the journalist who wrote the article. So what’s sympathetic article with a condescending headline makes some sense.