Sex and Creativity

I found this chapter very intriguing. I know that men and women are different in a lot of ways, but that's what makes their artistic vision different from each other; nevertheless they are both able to create works of art. In the last few decades, historians have endeavored to rediscover the artistic accomplishments of women and to incorporate them into the narrative of art history that has neglected them. While this is true of males, and that it is presumed that there were fewer females who were artists, this amount of information is even more problematic. Women artists were often most active in artistic expressions that were not typically signed. This includes many forms of textile production, including weaving, embroidery, and lace-making as well as manuscript illumination. During the Early Medieval period, manuscript illumination was a pursuit of monks and nuns alike. While occasional artists of this period are named, the vast majority of these illuminators remain unknown. This leaves researchers with whole groups of artists for whom no information is available. Another problem is the convention whereby women take their husbands' last names. This obviously impedes research, especially for example, in some cases where a work of unknown origin may be signed only with a first initial and last name. Furthermore, most reference works on artists, even those online, allow searches by last name only, but not by first name only. Clarity of identity is central to the western notion of the artistic genius who creates masterpieces which may be clearly situated and studied in relation to the contributions of other artists.