Abstract
Nanette Salomon, in her essay "The Art Historical Canon: Sins of Omission" written in 1991, described the canon as virulent, virulent, and vulnerable. As Salomon describes, the canon emerges from a model of writing on the lives of artists established by Florentine artist and writer, Giorgio Vasari.
(...)
The position Nanette Salomon takes in the writing of this essay is to introduce women into the canon to create a more accurate picture of what is happening and to give them a share of the voice that announces what is important. Another one is that the author is trying to challenge/critique the art historical canon in order to allow more inclusion for women artists' histories.
Extract
[...] Women do exist in the society too, not just male. Vasari, I disagree about his book, became the model for histories of male artists for centuries to come, his academy became the model for art academies throughout the European continent up to and including our own century. H.W. Janson, I disagree about no woman artists has been important enough to go into one volume history of art. I hope that women of all cultures will be able to change art history. [...]
[...] It is in art history books and art works. It continues to create controversy in societies, but it is still considering contemporary art. There are many things in the article that I agree with, including how women have tried to fight to make a stand for women in society. Women should have a chance to be involved in the art history books. Instead of using traditional methods in art history, using different approaches to help women not become famous but to show their identity. [...]
[...] Salomon sees problems in both how Vasari and Janson write art history. Vasari became the model for history of male artists. The writer Vasari who was the artist, the critic, and the canon is related to the economic and social conditions of his moment in history. On the other hand, Janson thinks that no woman artist had been important enough to go into a one volume history of art. The reason Salomon discusses Artemisia Gentilleschi is that she is the most striking Italian artist in the 17th century. [...]
[...] The status of this person to set positive examples for others, especially women. As Salomon notes: "Her art exemplifies the ways in which the conventional structures of art historical discourse safe guard their deepest subtext, those that preserve power for and endow with significance a privileged few".7 The fashioning of the female nude as it or she appears in ancient art and in the art of the Italian Renaissance is also produced within the framework of sexual desire. That desire is also repressed in formal art historical writing.8 The erotic appreciation of artistic nudes was masked by the concept of pure aesthetic pleasure, unpolluted by either the sexual desires of the producers. [...]
[...] Another one is that the author is trying to challenge/critique the art historical canon in order to allow more inclusion for women artists' histories. Primary among these is the archeological excavation of women as creators and the woman as critics and interpreters, receiving and inflecting works of art in ways of meaningful for them. First, Salomon sees the problems in the canon, form raises interesting problems in evaluating the main subjects of the canon.6 Observing the female nude body form and the male nude body form equally. [...]
