Skip to main content
Loading Explore guides…
Women in Art History · Acedra
Home
Explore
Art
Women in Art History
Sign in to save
Chat
If YouTube asks you to sign in, open the video on YouTube.
Watch on YouTube
Reload player
Transcript
121 segments
Copy
Hide video
0:00
Art history, like any other form of storytelling, thrives on its heroes and we know their names by heart—Da Vinci, Rembrandt, and van Gogh. Museums, exhibitions, and textbooks then romanticize these men until they become shorthand for movements, eras, and entire ways of creating. But alongside these masters, were women who worked within the same periods, movements, or styles. Yet their names are rarely mentioned, let alone celebrated. But why? The explanation often lands on familiar
0:35
socio-political issues: sexism, limited access to formal training, and exclusion from institutions. These realities undoubtedly stifled their visibility, but that's just a part of the story. These women didn’t create art despite their circumstances; they produced work that was just as innovative, complex, and visionary as their male peers. To reduce their obscurity to societal barriers alone does them a disservice. It explains why they were overlooked, yes, but it does little
1:09
to help us understand why their art matters and demands our attention. If we focus only on their challenges, we risk overlooking the richness of their contributions, the vibrancy of their voices, and the sheer brilliance of their work. For instance, if you’re mesmerized by the haunting naturalism of Courbet, why not see Bonheur’s take on the same? Like the brushwork of a Sargent? Try a Beaux. The point is not to diminish one artist for the sake of another, but rather
1:41
expand our view, and see art not as a solitary triumph but a shared, evolving conversation.
1:59
I think that’s something all of us—whether we’re artists, writers, thinkers, or just curious people—can relate to. We’re constantly creating something. It could be a piece of art for some, and for others it could be meaning, a sense of identity, or structure and order out of chaos that is our lives. And just like the artists we admire, we have inner lives that shape what we bring into
2:23
the world. That’s why I want to take a moment for this paid partnership with BetterHelp. I’ve done therapy myself, and to be honest, it wasn’t always easy getting started. Especially coming from a background where you're told to keep your head down and move forward. It leaves a lot of pain on the table, never to be addressed. But having someone to talk to really helped me sort through things I didn’t even realize I was carrying so tightly. BetterHelp, which connects you with a
2:52
credentialed therapist online, through video, phone, or even messaging, is one way of taking that first step. So If you’ve ever felt like having that kind of space to reflect and process might help you in your life, you can learn more using the link on the screen and the description. Not only will you be supporting this channel, but you’ll also get 10% off your first month’s therapy with BetterHelp. Now let’s get back to the video.
3:29
Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio is widely regarded as a pivotal figure in the development of the Baroque movement. Born and raised in Milan, his training began at the young age of 12 where he studied under Simone Peterzano, a former pupil of Titian. During his four-year apprenticeship, he was influenced by the Lombard school of art, which emphasized simplicity and naturalistic detail.
3:55
By the 1590s, Caravaggio had relocated to Rome, where he quickly gained attention for his innovative treatment of religious subjects His focus was on dramatic moments of spiritual or moral crisis, depicted with raw realism learned in his youth, and a rejection of the idealized figures of Renaissance art. His use of Tenebrism, a pronounced version of Chiaroscuro, characterized by stark contrasts between light and dark, magnified the physical and emotional presence of his subjects.
4:28
His art was about intensity, about pulling the viewer into a moment so they couldn’t look away. Artemesia Gentileschi is often linked to Caravaggio because of their shared stylistic techniques. Yet, her work doesn’t mimic her contemporary’s, it builds upon it. Born in Rome in 1593, her early artistic training came from her father, Orazio Gentileschi, a close follower of Caravaggio. In her father’s workshop, she mastered Chiaroscuro and human realism.
5:01
While Caravaggio was often preoccupied with male protagonists in religious or secular crises, Gentileschi brought women to the forefront. She painted biblical stories from the perspective of its female heroines, and shared the narratives that often went untold. This challenged the traditional portrayals of women in Baroque art and had a ripple effect in history. She questioned not just artistic conventions but societal ones, too, perhaps
5:30
to the best of her abilities, yes, but with a power that would echo through the centuries. To understand how both artists’s works stand alongside one another, let’s take a look at a shared subject. The story of Judith and Holofernes, a dramatic biblical tale, where Judith, a Jewish widow, beheads the Assyrian general Holofernes to save her city of Bethulia, which was under siege. Caravaggio’s version, painted in 1599 is quintessentially him.
6:01
high drama, bold Tenebrism, and a focus on that pivotal moment before the climax. Judith is illuminated as though caught in the spotlight, her face betraying an uncertainty, as if she’s grappling with the weight of her actions. Her brow is furrowed, her arms outstretched awkwardly as if she’s surprised by the task at hand. The elderly servant at Judith’s side is there to assist her and witness this act. But there’s something ominous and almost indifferent about her.
6:32
She has seen too much in life to flinch at yet another death. Holofernes meanwhile, writhes in agony, his muscular body twisting in a visceral portrayal of death in progress. His terror and shock is captured in his wide, bloodshot eyes and gaping mouth. The general who once held Judith’s people in fear now dies, helpless and confused, at the hands of someone he underestimated. The blood sprays from his neck, but this violence is not glorified, it’s rather uncomfortably real.
7:08
It doesn’t feel like a moral tale of good versus evil. In this moment, Judith is not a pure heroine and Holofernes is not entirely monstrous in his moment of death. Caravaggio wants us to feel the weight of Judith’s decision, to understand that righteousness and cruelty sometimes inhabit the same space. And this moral complexity is where Caravaggio’s true power lies.
7:36
Gentileschi’s take on the same subject from more than a decade later, is equally remarkable but carries with it a different energy. Where Caravaggio gives us a Judith who is hesitant in the face of her violent act, Gentileschi gives us one that is in total command. The grip on her sword is firm, her expression resolute, with not even a flicker of doubt. The two women—Judith and her maidservant—work together to drive the sword down with the precision and confidence of executioners.
8:09
Holofernes’ head is already half-severed, the dark red of the blood soaking the sheets. And this is where Gentileschi’s lived experience becomes inseparable from her work. As a woman in 17th-century Italy, she understood all too well the brutal dynamics of power. Her personal experience—having survived sexual assault by a friend of her father’s and the horrific trial that followed—is intertwined in this painting.
8:38
To prove her testimony was real, she was tortured with thumbscrews, a degrading practice that was meant to silence rather than empower, yet she still spoke. And despite being the victim, she faced public scrutiny while her attacker, though found guilty, never had the consequences of his actions enforced. There’s no question that Judith is acting from a place of righteousness, but more than that, there’s a catharsis here. An act of violence against male aggression.
9:10
This experience profoundly impacted the lens in which she portrayed women. Not as victims of their own fate but as powerful and capable beings. The collaboration between Judith and her maidservant isn’t just about efficiency. It’s a moment of female solidarity in the face of brutality. Technically too, Gentileschi’s painting is a triumph. Her use of Baroque drama is awe-inspiring. The deep shadows, the intense contrasts, all designed to heighten the tension of the scene.
9:45
But what makes it exceptional is how personal it feels. The weight of the sword, the firmness of Judith’s hand, and the splatter of blood. They all serve to make us feel not just the moment we’re seeing, but how we got here. The similarities between these two pieces are clear. The skillful depictions of the subjects, the emotional arc, and the dramatic lighting fall within both artists’ stylistic tendencies.
10:14
But having looked even closer, we can now also see each artist’s individuality. Caravaggio’s Judith stands at a distance from the violence, almost an observer of her own actions, which fits with his inclination to present human frailty in the face of divine or moral struggle. Gentileschi by contrast, brings us into the thick of the act. Her Judith is entirely committed to what she’s doing. She is a woman who no longer feels powerless.
10:46
It’s no surprise that Caravaggio is a household name. His use of Realism and light practically rewrote the rules of Western painting. But Gentileschi belongs in the same breath. In 1616, she made history as the first woman to join Florence’s Academy of the Arts of Drawing, an impressive feat given the time period. Her works offer something equally compelling, and arguably more layered. She brings us into the tension between power and
11:16
vulnerability, between strength and the scars of trauma. She wasn’t simply a woman painting in a “man’s” style according to the standards of her time, but in truth, she painted like herself. A visionary artist who deserves to stand beside, not in the shadow of, her male counterpart.
11:46
When discussing Neoclassicism, you might think of this piece, or this, or this. These are all by the same artist—Jacques-Louis David—a poster child of the movement. David was born into a wealthy family in Paris in 1748. A facial tumor which impaired his speech left him socially withdrawn, so he spent a lot of his time drawing. His formal training began at the age of 18 when he was accepted into the Royal Academy of Painting and Sculpture in Paris and studied under Rococo artists.
12:20
In 1774 after 4 failures, he finally won the prestigious Prix de Rome, which allowed him to study in Italy for five years. His visits to ancient ruins, exposure to Neoclassical teachings, and study of Nicolas Poussin's classical style encouraged him to abandon the Rococo movement’s excess and frivolity and embrace the realism and grandeur of the Neoclassical movement.
12:48
This movement flourished in Europe during the 18th and 19th centuries and was born out of Enlightenment ideals, acting as a return to the principles of ancient Rome and Greece—order, clarity, and moral purpose. Alongside him was Angelica Kauffman, a celebrated Swiss-born artist who also had an important role in defining the movement. Born in Chur, Switzerland in 1741, Kauffman was recognized as a child prodigy.
13:17
Not only for her art, she painted this self portrait at the age of 13, but she was also a gifted singer and could speak four languages—German, Italian, French, and English. She was trained by her father, the Austrian portrait painter Joseph Johann Kauffman, and by the early 1760s she was traveling with him throughout Switzerland, Austria, and Italy as his assistant. This gave her a rare opportunity especially for a woman of her time, to study and replicate classical and Renaissance
13:46
masterpieces and to mingle with key figures of the emerging Neoclassical movement. In 1766, she moved to London and quickly found success as a portrait artist. Over the next 15 years, she exhibited regularly at the Royal Academy, as one of only two female founding members and worked for a distinguished clientele that included members of the aristocracy. In her work, she subtly steered the Neoclassical movement away from purely dramatic, stage-like depictions to
14:16
the emotional undertones and the virtues of her subjects.
14:22
Both artists rose to prominence during the late 18th century, had overlapping artistic careers and shared this movement, but today we’ll see where their artistic approaches differed.
14:35
Let’s first look at Jacques-Louis David’s Oath of the Horatii, a work that has in many ways, defined the Neoclassical era. It was commissioned by King Louis XVI of France in 1784 before the outbreak of the French Revolution. The painting depicts a scene from an ancient Roman legend involving a conflict between two cities, Rome and Alba Longa. To avoid a full-scale war, each city chooses three champions to represent them in single combat.
15:04
Rome selects the three Horatii brothers, while Alba Longa chooses the three Curatii brothers. The painting tells a clear, patriotic narrative. Three brothers swear allegiance to their father as they prepare to defend their city. But there’s an emotional punch here that makes the scene hopeless no matter the outcome. A Curatii sister is married to a Horatii brother, and one Horatii sister is engaged to a Curatii brother.
15:31
No matter who wins the fight, there will be devastating personal losses. At Almost 330 by 425 centimetres, first and foremost we are struck by its monumental, staged composition where the figures feel like actors in a classical drama. David has structured the piece into three distinct vertical sections, divided by Roman arches in the background. The three brothers, their father, and the women and children on the right.
16:00
At the heart of the composition is the Vanishing Point where the father is holding onto the swords. Here, where all the lines seem to meet. The spot where your eyes keep going back to. Through the choice in spacing and the Horatii’s arms, yes, but also If you look closely, the edges of the walls and floor even seem to point towards this spot. On the right, three women and two children are seated, their bodies painted with soft, curving lines which
16:28
provides a stark contrast to the rigid angularity of the men. They too are consumed by grief, but they are relegated to the margins of the canvas, physically and emotionally distanced from the intense narrative of duty and sacrifice. Their eyes are even closed, further emphasizing their passive role, a depiction of Rousseau’s prevalent philosophy of the time which suggested that women could not be true citizens of the state and were unable to think about their civic responsibility.
16:59
Our male subjects, with their muscular lines and marble-like stiffness look almost statuesque. The relatively bare roman hall background, and the muted color palette are in keeping with Neoclassicism’s preference for simplicity and clarity, but also do well to redirect our attention back to the story. It's a painting that serves its purpose, which for David was often political. At the time of its creation, David operated within the traditional art system,
17:29
relying on commissions from powerful patrons including the monarchy. However, as the French Revolution gained momentum in the late 1780s, David’s political views shifted bit by bit. He joined the Jacobins, one of the most radical revolutionary factions and became a strong advocate for Republicanism, which sought to abolish the monarchy and establish a French Republic. And so ironically, David would later support overthrowing the same monarch who had commissioned this painting.
18:00
Though it was created 5 years before the Revolution, it foreshadows the themes of nationalism, civic duty, and sacrifice that would later dominate revolutionary France.
18:13
David, in many ways, was already preparing the stage for the upheaval to come.
18:20
Now let’s take a look at Angelica Kauffman’s Cornelia, Mother of the Gracchi completed one year later in 1785. This painting is based after the another well-known Roman story about Cornelia who raised her two sons, Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus, to become politically active reformers in 2nd century BCE Rome, advocating for social and political changes to support the lower classes. After losing nine of her twelve children, she devoted herself to raising the remaining three
18:51
and though widowed she even declined a marriage proposal from the Egyptian king Ptolemy to focus on their upbringing. Starting from the right, we see a woman presenting our main subject with fine jewelry, but instead of admiring the gems, Cornelia gestures toward her three children, signalling that they are her true treasures. The figures are arranged in a triangular formation, with Cornelia standing tall and her children at her sides.
19:21
This arrangement brings balance to the scene but also reinforces Cornelia’s status and moral authority here.
19:29
She wears a modest attire and her posture is calm and regal. By contrast, the visitor on the right dressed in more elaborate garments, wears a furrowed brow and a slightly open mouth, suggesting concern, perhaps even embarrassment. She is preoccupied with the material wealth in her hands.
19:50
With a palette of soft, almost subdued hues and pops of red, Kauffman refrains from overtly dramatizing this moment. In fact, her color choices guide our eye to Cornelia’s white gown, glowing against the painting’s warm tones to highlight her purity and moral values. Kauffman uses light to create depth and focus. There’s no ambiguity in where our attention should go.
20:16
In the end, this painting becomes not just a historical scene, but a reflection of Kauffman’s own artistic intentions; to elevate the moral and intellectual capacities of women, To show that true greatness lies not in riches or public accolades but in quiet inner strength. Both of these pieces borrow from Roman history, investigate the topic of selflessness, and follow a clear narrative.
20:44
While David’s painting is rigid and angular, Kauffmans’ is soft and intimate. Her figures are rounder, their forms more delicate. There’s a quiet nobility to them, something almost organic, as if they’re part of the natural world rather than sculpted icons. The drapery feels alive, wrapping seamlessly around their bodies and creating a sense of movement. Cornelia stands at the heart of this, arms outstretched, proud and content, directing our gaze to her children.
21:20
Their postures speak of innocence, their gestures of affection. Even the colors, though still within the Neoclassical boundaries, suggest warmth and welcome, a contrast to David’s more restrained palette. What we see here are the two sides of Neoclassicism. David’s vision is all about the public. Duty to the state, heroic actions carried out in a public way. And Kauffmans' is where sacrifice and virtue play out in quieter, domestic spheres. And then there’s the question of gender.
21:56
David’s women are usually sidelined, passive observers in the unfolding drama. But Kauffman puts Cornelia dead-centre. She may not be a political figure, but as a mother, she’s essential to Rome’s future. Kauffman claws open the Neoclassical ideal of virtue beyond the masculine world of public duty to include domestic and maternal sacrifices.
22:32
The nineteenth century was a period of significant transformation in French art. During this time, the art movement of Realism emerged as a response to Romanticism which focused on showing idealized representation. Rosa Bonheur and Gustave Courbet were two artists who contributed greatly to this movement, and paint us an accurate depiction of the realities of the time.
22:56
Bonheur’s work focused on animals and rural life and was grounded in scientific observation and an interest in the natural world. Courbet’s work on the other hand, was centred on human subjects as a way to show the social and political issues of the time. Gustave Courbet was born in 1819 to a well-off farming family in Ornans, a rural town in eastern France. His childhood years spent wandering through the fields and woods of the region,
23:26
forged a lifelong bond between him, the land, and his surrounding community. This attachment became a key influence in his artistic career, inspiring the regional themes that appear prominently throughout his work. He attended boarding school in Besançon, where he was briefly taught by local painter Charles-Antoine Flajoulot, a disciple of Jacques-Louis David. At age 20, he moved to Paris with the intention of studying law but decided to pursue art instead.
23:56
He joined the studio of the Romantic painter, Charles Steuben, but soon abandoned his formal teachings in favor self-taught study. Courbet frequently visited the Louvre, learning from the works of Spanish, Venetian, and Dutch masters. He was not anyone’s idea of an easy painter and proclaimed himself as the proudest and most arrogant man in France. But his brand of Realism had little to do with the polite observations of everyday life.
24:25
He painted the physicality. The sweat of laborers, the rugged bodies of peasants, the coarse textures of rural landscapes. His subjects were often referred to as ugly by critics, and therein laid their power. Through his raw, unvarnished Realist paintings, he depicted the working class in all of their grit and struggle, defiantly rejecting the polished ideals and conservative values of the elite. And this defiance wasn’t just aesthetic, it was deeply political.
24:57
The revolutionary climate of mid-19th-century France, especially the 1848 Revolution that led to the establishment of the French Second Republic, left a mark on Courbet’s personal and professional choices for years to come.
25:12
He was influenced by the spirit of the time and called himself a "Republican by birth" but kept his pacifist beliefs for the next 2 decades. He showed his support through his art and this spirit gradually extended to his politics too. He was one of the people who took part in the 1871 destruction of the Vendôme Column which resulted in his imprisonment and financial ruin. Where Courbet positioned himself in deliberate opposition to the art establishment,
25:42
Rosa Bonheur worked to be accepted within artistic boundaries. She was born in 1822 in Bordeaux, France into a progressive family. Her father, Oscar-Raymond Bonheur was a struggling landscape painter who encouraged her artistic talents from an early age. Her family adhered to a Christian sect called Saint-Simoniansm which promoted gender equality and encouraged women to pursue education and careers. When she was six, her family moved to Paris but soon after,
26:13
her father abandoned them to join the utopian socialist Saint-Simonian movement, only to take back responsibility for his kids when his wife passed away 5 years later. As a child, Bonheur was reportedly unruly, and struggled to read. She was expelled from school several times, and would spend most of her time drawing instead. To help support her daughter’s education however, her mother came up with a unique method.
26:38
She asked Rosa to choose and draw a different animal for each letter of the alphabet. Bonheur later credited these lessons as the spark for her lifelong love of drawing animals. Like Courbet, Bonheur was largely self-taught. She copied images from drawing books, studied domesticated animals, and copied works by the masters at the Louvre. Her reputation grew steadily during the 1840s as she exhibited her animal paintings and sculptures at the annual Paris Salon.
27:08
As a Realist, Bonheur was best known for her animal paintings, and she observed them up close. She would visit slaughterhouses and livestock fairs—places generally off-limits to women. To gain access she applied for a police permit to wear men's clothing which allowed her move about anywhere a man could. Societal norms concerning femininity did not stop her commitment to her craft. Bonheur never married and lived with her partner Nathalie Micas for over 40 years.
27:38
She is sometimes cited as ‘the first lesbian artist’ and it is also possible that she may have understood herself to be trans, non-binary, or genderqueer. Her painting, Ploughing in the Nivernais, commissioned by the French government for 3,000 francs depicts the autumn ritual of plowing the fields. It was exhibited at the 1849 Paris Salon where it won the gold medal, Bonheur’s second. It was later displayed in the Louvre,
28:04
the same museum she had visited a decade earlier as a young artist, now showcasing her work. The Nivernais region, the setting and title of this piece, is known for its Charolais cattle, famous for their white or cream-colored coats, muscular build, and high beef yield. This landscape painting measuring at 133 by 260 centimetres, depicts rolling hills under a clear sky. The horizon line is low which lets our eyes focus on the figures and animals in the foreground.
28:37
We see eleven large oxen moving in pairs. Their bodies are slightly bent forward, pulling a plow through a muddy, furrowed field. The low vantage point emphasizes the size of the oxen, making them appear monumental. Bonheur meticulously painted each oxen, paying close attention to the the musculature of their bodies, the subtle variations of color that indicate different breeds, the texture of their coats, and the cold pale light shining off of them.
29:06
The busy foreground takes up less than half of the painting, but it commands more of our attention. The serene landscape, the soft hills, dotting trees and clear sky, opens up the scene and allows it to breathe, providing a sense of calm around the labor. The sunlight is steady and constant, gently falling across the animals and the earth, illuminating the scene without overwhelming it. There’s an interesting sense of balance in the populated space and the quiet above it.
29:39
American art historian Albert Boime interprets the painting as a tribute to peasant life and its enduring traditions, placing it within the context of the revolutionary spirit of 1848, when urban cities were rife with unrest. The soil, painted with remarkable richness and fertility is a symbol of the national pride of the French countryside, suggesting that France will not only survive but flourish from this upheaval.
30:08
And yet as we look closer, it’s not the human figures who command our attention. The four farmers rendered with less detail, move alongside the cattle in quiet dedication, showing us that the animals are the central subjects here.
30:25
Gustave Courbet's The Stone Breakers offers a direct portrayal of human labor. This piece was painted in 1849 but was unfortunately destroyed in World War II during a bombing raid of Dresden. We see two laborers engaged in the grueling task of breaking stones— an everyday reality for rural workers in mid-19th century France. Our subjects wear torn, ragged clothing. There’s no rolling French countryside here, no poetic distance.
30:56
On the right side, an elderly man is bent low, his sledgehammer raised, skin baked by sun, straw hat casting shade. His trousers are of a coarse material and patched on the front. His blue sock ripping away showing the heel of his foot. Behind him is a young man holding a basket of stones. His shirt is shredded, revealing his arms and back and a lone leather suspender holds up his trousers. His position suggests he is learning the trade, indicating the cycle of poverty.
31:32
In the background is a shallow hill cloaked in shade. Courbet has confined his subjects into an almost claustrophobic space, trapped, with no depth for them to retreat into. In the corner, there is a small patch of a blue sky, something the workers see ahead of them but can never reach. Their faces are obscured, turned away from the viewer, they are anonymous. Archetypal representations of poverty and the working class.
32:01
This makes the focal point of the painting the concept of labor itself. The color palette is made of muted earth tones, grays, browns, and ochres that blend all elements into one another.
32:16
Even the subjects seem to emerge directly from the earth itself. They are bound to the land in a way that’s both literal and symbolic. Courbet refuses to use the subjects or the colours to give us a break. There’s no warmth, no glow, no attempt to elevate the scene into something that transcends the oppressive weight of their situation. These two paintings do a great job of showing us different takes on the notion of work. One filtered through admiration and romanticized distance,
32:47
and the other through empathy and confrontation. Bonheur gives us a world in which labor, as supported by animals and earth, finds an elegant rhythm, and Courbet confronts us with the reality that strains under the weight of necessity. In their Realism, both paintings underline the depth of connection between painter and subject, though where Bonheur seeks beauty in the pastoral, Courbet reveals the heavy price of daily survival.
33:26
John Singer Sargent and Cecilia Beaux are two artists whose careers intersected at the height of portraiture’s popularity in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Though often discussed in separate contexts, their work shares striking similarities, both in terms of their technical command of the medium and the privileged class they depicted. John Singer Sargent was born in 1856 in Florence Italy to American expatriate parents. His childhood was spent rather nomadically
33:57
as he and his family travelled across Europe, while they lived modestly on their savings and a small inheritance. His mother believed that traveling and visiting museums would provide him with education, as their itinerant lifestyle made formal schooling difficult. At 18, he moved to Paris and began studying under Carolus-Duran, a leading portraitist who encouraged his students to paint immediately without preliminary drawings, in order to exploit the freshness of an initial idea.
34:28
He did this through Alla Prima or Wet-on-Wet, a technique of layering wet paint on an existing layer of wet paint. Sargent absorbed his teachings and as he learned more, his art moved closer to his teacher’s style. There is almost no work of his that does not reflect the manner of Carolus-Duran. After a few years, Sargent left Paris for Spain where he intensely studied the works of Diego Velázquez, absorbing his approach to light and realism.
34:57
Then he went to Italy, practicing gestures and postures of Venetian street scenes, visual cues he’d later thread into his portraits. When he returned to Paris, he quickly received several portrait commissions which officially launched his career. His technical mastery is evident in his ability to manipulate light, especially in his depiction of luxurious fabrics and aristocratic postures. He captured the rich and powerful in ways that immortalized their social standing.
35:30
Cecilia Beaux was born a year earlier than Sargent in 1855 in Philadelphia, United States. Her mother passed away 12 days after giving birth to her. Her father, unable to bear the grief of his loss, returned to his native France leaving Beaux and her older sister to be raised by relatives. Her maternal relatives introduced her to art by having her copy lithographs and took her to exhibitions at the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts.
36:00
Her formal art education began in the 1870s when she studied for a year under Catharine Ann Drinker, an accomplished artist who would become PAFA’s first part-time woman instructor. Drinker encouraged Beaux to pursue art as a career. In 1888, after turning down several marriage proposals, Beaux chose to fully dedicate herself to portraiture and spent 19 months studying in Europe. She traveled through France and Italy where she was influenced by academic artists
36:33
Tony Robert-Fleury and William-Adolphe Bouguereau, as well as the works of Édouard Manet and Edgar Degas.
36:41
The Impressionist movement, then all the rage, loosened her brushstrokes and lightened her palette, but Beaux was no follower. She blended Impressionism’s spontaneity with the careful precision of Realism, creating a style all her own. Lady Agnew of Lochnaw, painted in 1892 and measuring at approximately 130 by 100 centimetres, is one of John Singer Sargent’s most stunning works, and arguably my favorite, though it’s hard to choose.
37:12
Sargent had a unique way of portraying women with respect and admiration, a refreshing departure from their usual depictions as muses or victims. This portrait is of Lady Gertrude Agnew, and it was commissioned by her husband, Sir Andrew Agnew, a member of the British parliament. In it, we see her siting in an 18th century French floral upholstered chair, supporting her body’s elegant position. A Chinese blue silk drapery decorated with visible characters, forms the backdrop.
37:44
The composition feels intimate yet formal, with Lady Agnew's body slightly turned away while her head directly confronts both us the viewer, and Sargent painting her. Despite her relaxed posture and informal demeanor, she is unmistakably a figure of status and power. She wears a white gown with a lilac silk sash around her waist. The soft rendering of the flowing white dress contrasts with the precise depiction of her face and hands,
38:13
showing us Sargent’s ability to oscillate between looser and more controlled brushstrokes. This duality serves to draw the viewer's attention immediately to Lady Agnew's face, while the lesser- defined gown and chair recede into the periphery. The color palette is similarly restrained with range of whites, grays, and lavenders. Our subject seems at once present and fleeting, as if she could slip away into the airiness of the canvas.
38:43
The soft, diffused light bathes her in a gentle glow, with shadows that caress rather than hide her features. Her dark, enigmatic eyes hold our gaze. She appears contemplative, yet not aloof, engaged, yet inward-looking. This ambiguity allows the viewer to project their own interpretations onto her. Sargent is not simply creating a record of Lady Agnew’s appearance, but is letting us in on the secret of who she really is, a rarity for portraits of aristocrats.
39:18
Now let’s look at another portrait, Sita and Sarita by Cecilia Beaux. It was painted just a year after Lady Agnew and is approximately the same size same size at 113 by 83 centimetres. Here, we see a woman, Beaux’s cousin Sarah Allibone Leavitt, seated on a sofa with her black cat perched on her left shoulder. The title "Sarita" is the Spanish diminutive for "Sarah," meaning "little Sarah," and "Sita" means "little one," referring to the cat.
39:50
Sarah’s pose is simple and informal, and her body is angled slightly away from the viewer while the cat faces forward. Her skin is pale, contrasting sharply with the dark, almost shadowy figure of the black cat. She is dressed in a soft, flowing white gown that melts into the couch, its folds loosely rendered in soft, impressionistic brushstrokes. Her cat meanwhile, painted in one shade of black, blends into the background, making its features difficult to discern.
40:22
Yet, both Sarah’s and the cat’s green eyes seem to glow. Here, Beaux is showing us the connection between them despite their contrasting appearances. Her right hand is placed on her lap, while the other touches the cat’s ear lightly. Her expression is calm, with her lips gently closed and her eyes looking into the distance. She appears thoughtful yet relaxed, perhaps reflecting on something personal.
40:49
The cat, poised on her shoulder, hints at hidden desires or Sarah’s deeper, unspoken self, playing off the conventional portrait setting with a twist. The painting might be interpreted as a quiet assertion of female autonomy, where the subject is not there for anyone else but only for herself, and her companionship with the cat reinforces the power she has gained in her choice of solitude. The background is nondescript, almost fading into abstraction.
41:19
This draws our attention entirely to the woman and her pet but without the typical symbols of wealth or social status that were often found in portraits. The influence of the Impressionists on Beaux’s work is evident here in her use of a light, airy palette and looser brushstrokes. Her technique is precise and controlled, especially in the depiction of skin tones and textures which rival Sargent’s. However, unlike Sargent’s tendency to emphasize the aristocratic air of his sitters,
41:49
Beaux’s composition reflects a more personal, intimate dynamic. The relationship between the woman and her pet feels warm and private and we are invited into Sarah’s world, rather than kept at arm’s length.
42:04
Both Sargent and Beaux enjoyed critical success during their lifetimes. Sargent’s career across Europe and the United States cemented his reputation as the preeminent portraitist of his era. His work was sought after by the wealthy elite who valued his ability to capture both their physical likeness and their social standing. Beaux, while perhaps not as globally recognized, was highly regarded in American art circles. She was the first woman to teach full-time at
42:33
the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts and was described by First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt as "the American woman who had made the greatest contribution to the culture of the world." The historical disparity in their posthumous reputations can be attributed in part to gender biases that have long shaped the past. But today as we make the effort to be more informed, it’s easy to see that they were both masters of their craft, and innovators within a tradition
43:00
that was in many ways, bound by convention.
43:04
Their legacies, distinct yet interconnected, speak to the brilliance that portraiture can hold.
43:22
Édouard Manet and Berthe Morisot were prominent figures in the 19th-century Parisian art world, both contributing significantly to the development of modern painting. Their professional and personal relationship often places their work in direct comparison. Edouard Manet was born in 1832 in Paris. His father was an official in the French Ministry of Justice, and his mother was the daughter of a diplomat.
43:49
Although he took an early interest in art, he initially wanted to follow in his father’s footsteps and pursue a career as a lawyer or naval officer. But after twice failing the entrance exam for the Naval Academy, he was forced to join the Merchant Marine, where between his travels as a student pilot, he would paint. Eventually, he returned to Paris with paintings in hand, and earned a reluctant blessing from his father to pursue formal art training.
44:16
He enrolled in the studio of Thomas Couture, a history painter, and spent six years learning about academic painting methods. During this time, he took brief trips to Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands, where he was struck by Frans Hals’ rough-edged portraits of everyday people done in bold, and loose brushwork.
44:37
He left Couture 1856 when he began rejecting these conventions in favor of more modern subjects. His works, often misunderstood and controversial in their time, challenged the French Salon, but also set the stage for Impressionists and, more broadly, kicked off the beginning of the Modern Art Movement. His boldness, whether through his subject matter or his style, made him impossible to ignore.
45:04
He influenced younger artists who would come to be known as the Impressionists, and from them he learned. His works from the 1870s onwards had a lighter palette and looser brushwork. But unlike the Impressionists who embraced spontaneity, Manet's work retained its intention. He carefully planned his paintings, using sketches, models, and long hours in the studio to create that sense of roughness that defined his works.
45:33
Berthe Morisot was another type of a revolutionary. Born in 1841 in Bourges, central France, a decade after Manet, she came from a similarly privileged background. Her father, Edmé Morisot was a high-ranking government official and on her mother’s side, she was related to the Rococo painter Jean-Honoré Fragonard. For daughters of the bourgeoisie, art education was not uncommon, and so in the 1850s, her training began under Geoffroy-Alphonse Chocarne,
46:06
Joseph Guichard, and the great landscape painter Camille Corot. By the late 1860s, her work began to reflect a shift toward a lighter palette and a looser brushwork, elements that would define her role in the emerging Impressionist movement.
46:24
As one of the most prominent female artists in the Impressionist movement, she wasn’t as focused on explicitly challenging the rules. Instead, she concentrated on capturing her personal experiences and the intimate moments around her. She painted women and children, private moments of family life, and tranquil scenes from gardens and interiors. Subjects largely overlooked by male artists. Though not her intention, this unique perspective expanded what could be represented in art.
46:56
In her oeuvre, we see a nuanced understanding of femininity, where she has captured both the tenderness and isolation of women’s experiences in 19th-century France.
47:08
Their paintings may hang side by side in museum halls, but Manet and Morisot were each telling their own story. Together, they give us not just a glimpse of 19th-century France but two completely different ways of seeing, feeling, and translating the world onto the canvas. Édouard Manet’s The Balcony is a great example of his modern eye. It catches you off guard, with its unusual use of light, color, and compositional structure,
47:39
not quite fitting into the category of portraiture, nor fully committing to genre painting. We see four figures standing on a balcony, gazing out, but lost in their own worlds. Seated in the foreground left, with her arm resting on the railing is Berthe Morisot, Manet’s close friend and future sister-in-law. She was frequently depicted in his paintings, but here marks her very first appearance.
48:07
Beside her is Antoine Guillemet, a landscape painter, and Fanny Claus, a violinist, all three framed within the wrought-iron railing. In the background, we see a maid that’s partially obscured by shadows. They are all isolated in their positions, each occupying a separate space within the canvas. The structural approach is modelled after Francisco Goya’s The Majas on the Balcony, a painting he encountered during his academic training.
48:35
But where Goya’s painting carries a sense of threat with shadowy figures lurking in the background, Manet’s version takes a more nuanced approach. The railing of the balcony divides the composition horizontally, separating the figures from the exterior environment which remains largely undefined. The shutters and the railing of the balcony create a framing device that emphasizes the flatness of the space, almost pushing the figures out toward the viewer while denying depth.
49:06
Manet plays with the contrast between the vivid green of the shutters, umbrella and railing, the blue of the man's tie and flowers, and the glaring white of the women’s dresses, and black of the man’s suit. His choice in colouring however was seen as provocative by the Paris Salon in 1869 when it was shown. It created a sharp visual tension that was mysterious, further heightened by the lack of connection between the figures, who seemed more like objects than people.
49:35
Critics didn’t appreciate this approach and dismissed the painting as "coarse art," comparing it to the work of house painters. The painting tells no narrative. It offers no anecdotes. It’s obvious that it’s rooted in everyday bourgeoisie life, but Manet doesn’t invite us to understand it. And this is because he was in the midst of breaking away from academic conventions. He believed in the power that lied in stillness.
50:03
In contrast, Morisot’s Summer’s Day, completed a decade later in 1879, embraces the fluidity that defined the Impressionist movement. It’s an exhalation of light and color, a whisper of French leisure, painted with a hand so light that the world seems to shimmer and sway with the breeze that surely must have been present in that quiet boat ride. The painting is of two women in period appropriate fashion, one in lavender and the other in dark blue,
50:33
seated in a boat on the water at Bois de Boulogne, a park in western Paris. The women are not random passersby. They were professional models who posed for both Morisot and Manet. The boat, waiting to be pushed out, is slightly tilted to one side, making us feel the gentle movement on the water. Our subjects are integrated into their surroundings. Morisot’s brushstrokes are soft, almost dissolving in the late afternoon sun,
51:02
as if the forms were emerging and retreating in the same breath. The women, though clear, are not painted realistically and are more gestures of femininity than portraits of individuals. But don’t be fooled. Her composition is meticulously thought out. The canvas is structured into three sections - the foreground which contains the two women, the nearing background with the water and ducks, and the tree-filled far background on the top.
51:31
She uses soft greens, greys and whites, blending into one another to create a sense of atmosphere rather than form which is in line with the impressionists’ focus on the perception of light and the momentary effects of the environment. The most prominent colors that stand out are the blues of the umbrella, the coat worn by the woman on the left and the ribbon on the hat of the woman on the right.
51:55
This particular shade was rarely used by Morisot’s contemporaries, and only became available in tube form in the 1860s. And the green foliage? It’s an innovative mixture of emerald green, viridian, lead white, and cadmium yellow, a combination that wasn’t commonly seen at the time. The women appear relaxed and engaged in their private thoughts, unaware of our presence, which emphasizes Morisot’s focus on quiet, personal moments.
52:24
Beneath the pastel colors and the playful light however, there’s a melancholic undertone, one that Morisot, as a woman navigating the male-dominated art world must have known intimately. Despite Morisot’s social standing and privilege, she often painted indoors and focused on women’s domestic lives, for somewhat practical reasons. At the time, unaccompanied women were closely scrutinized and attracted the attention of strangers, making outdoor painting a challenge.
52:53
Summer’s Day is unique because it is one of the few paintings Morisot completed en plein air or outdoors. If we put ourselves in her shoes to understand her experience of the day, we gain further depth. What must it have been like for Morisot and her two models to navigate this rare, open-air setting with all the challenges that came with it?
53:15
She captured a rebellious moment that she could have easily avoided for her own comfort, but instead she saw it through and preserved it as something that’s endured over a century later.
53:27
Manet’s painting is a formal, almost theatrical composition, where the figures are presented as objects of contemplation rather than participants in the scene. The detachment of the subjects, particularly Morisot’s, reflects Manet’s interest in the psychological distance between the viewer and the subject, and that’s almost painted literally in the railing that separates them from us. Morisot, however, brings us into the scene in Summer’s Day.
53:54
The two women are not posed for the viewer but are engaged in their own right. Her ability to depict women not as objects but as independent individuals is indicative of her approach and sets her apart from many of her male contemporaries, including Manet. If you like the way Manet captures modernity, the way he pushes you to see something new, you’ll like how Morisot lets you feel it— quietly, gently, but with no less impact.
54:23
Together, they show us modern life they knew in all its complexity, sometimes sharp, sometimes soft, but always moving. In looking back on narratives in art history, it's clear that what we’ve inherited is only a partial story. One that emphasizes a handful of male artists as the definitive voices of their time. And beyond this selected few, is an entire parallel universe of equally compelling art
54:50
created by women, whose contributions have often been overlooked, not for their lack of talent or innovation but because of the structures that governed their visibility.
55:00
As we saw today, these women were integral to the artistic movements they engaged with, shaping them just as much as their more famous male counterparts. To reclaim their stories is to expand on our understanding of art’s history, not by replacing the masters but by placing them within a wider and more inclusive context. And the fact that we’re only recently beginning to catch up with posthumous exhibitions and literature, says more about us than it does about them.
Here to help you learn
Sign in to keep a private conversation with your course tutor.
Ask me anything about the material…
Sign in to chat