Placeholder Content Image

Galleries continue to erase women artists in their blockbuster exhibitions

<p>The National Gallery recently <a href="https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/about-us/press-and-media/press-releases/after-impressionism">announced</a> its summer 2023 exhibition, After Impressionism, claiming the show will celebrate the “towering achievements of Cezanne, Van Gogh, Gaugin and Rodin” among others. The <a href="https://twitter.com/NationalGallery/status/1528729976542986242">response on social media</a> to this announcement was largely, “where are the women?”</p> <p>Some on Twitter offered suggestions of women who should be included in the exhibition, including Suzanne Valadon, Paula Modersohn-Becker, Gabriele Münter and Sonia Delaunay, to name just a few. The National Gallery <a href="https://twitter.com/NationalGallery/status/1529758889150930944">tweeted</a> the same text to several of these replies: “We have announced a small number of confirmed loans to the exhibition. This includes Camille Claudel’s Imploration. We will share more loans, including major works by women artists, closer to the opening.” </p> <p>While it remains to be seen what these works will be, it is clear they are not considered integral to the show, or a significant draw for the public, by the gallery. If they were, they would have been mentioned front and centre in the press release. </p> <p>That was accompanied by an image of Cezanne’s <a href="https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/paul-cezanne-bathers-les-grandes-baigneuses">Bathers (Les Grandes Baigneuses)</a>, which depicts a group of nude women. Clearly in 2022, the easiest way for a woman to get on to the walls of the National Gallery is <a href="https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/guerrilla-girls-do-women-have-to-be-naked-to-get-into-the-met-museum-p78793">still</a> by being nude.</p> <p>The National Gallery is somewhat of an outlier among global museums in its continued failure to broaden the narratives it tells through its collection and exhibitions. But its focus on extremely well-known white male artists demonstrates what it considers to be innovative and important – and therefore what it does not. </p> <h2>When women have been blockbusters</h2> <p>The expectation that “blockbuster” shows be about household-name artists is a vicious cycle – artists cannot become household names if they’re not included in big exhibitions. The lack of women in traditional art historical scholarship has led to the belief that there simply weren’t many, or indeed any, important women artists working in Europe in this period, which is entirely false – as the backlash on Twitter highlighted. Yet museums still seem unable to recover them into the canon.</p> <p>The idea that only household names sell tickets has also been repeatedly debunked over the past decade. The best example is New York’s Guggenheim Museum’s 2018 <a href="https://www.guggenheim.org/exhibition/hilma-af-klint">exhibition</a> of the works of Swedish artist Hilma af Klint, the first major retrospective of the artist’s works in the US – and the first time most people attending the show had seen or heard of her. The exhibition became the museum’s <a href="https://news.artnet.com/art-world/hilma-af-klint-breaks-records-guggenheim-1522192?utm_content=buffer3ce14&amp;utm_medium=social&amp;utm_source=facebook.com&amp;utm_campaign=news">best-attended show ever</a>.</p> <p>The National Portrait Gallery’s 2019-20 show <a href="https://www.npg.org.uk/whatson/pre-raphaelite-sisters/exhibition/">Pre-Raphelite Sisters</a> and Madrid’s Museo del Prado’s 2020-21 show <a href="https://www.museodelprado.es/en/whats-on/exhibition/uninvited-guests-episodes-on-women-ideology-and/197d4831-41f1-414d-dbdf-5ffd7be4cc3f">Uninvited Guests: Episodes on Women, Ideology and the Visual Arts in Spain (1833-1931)</a> both foregrounded women in traditionally male art movements and periods. </p> <p>Both were the recipients of <a href="https://www.frieze.com/article/pre-raphaelite-sisters-national-portrait-gallery-review-ode-sisterly-solidarity">some</a> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/19/prados-first-post-lockdown-show-reignites-debate-over-misogyny">criticism</a>, largely arguing that the curators had not gone far enough in centring work actually made by women, rather than simply depicting them. Both shows, however, represent steps towards imagining new methods of disrupting traditional art history narratives. </p> <h2>Still woefully underrepresented in permanent collections</h2> <p>In the autumn and winter of 2020, the National Gallery hosted its first exhibition headlining a female artist. It was a retrospective of the works of the remarkable Renaissance artist <a href="https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/exhibitions/past/artemisia">Artemisia Gentileschi</a>, one of the few women whose work is held in the gallery’s permanent collection. </p> <p>Women artists are woefully underrepresented in the permanent collections of major museums around the world – these are the works of art that are owned by museums and hung on the walls year-round, not just during special exhibitions.</p> <p>The National Gallery, which boasts a collection of more than 2,000 works, owns only <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2019/jan/31/female-artists-are-finally-in-our-galleries-lets-keep-them-there">24 works</a> by women, representing just <a href="https://artuk.org/discover/stories/the-eight-women-artists-of-the-national-gallery">eight</a> women artists. While this ratio is remarkably bad, the National Gallery is not alone in having a profound imbalance. </p> <p>The arts publications Artnet and arts podcast In Other Words partnered in 2019 to <a href="https://news.artnet.com/womens-place-in-the-art-world/visualizing-the-numbers-see-infographics-1654084">analyse</a> the representation of women in the collections of American museums. They found that between 2008 and 2018, just 14% of work in museum exhibitions was by women and just 11% of museum acquisitions were works by women. These acquisitions and exhibitions are heavily skewed towards modern and contemporary art. </p> <p>Women artists working before 1900 are far less represented in museum collections. In some cases, their works are in smaller museums or in private collections and, in others, they are untraced or lost. This makes including their work in exhibitions more difficult because it can be harder to find.</p> <p>Yet despite the fact that women’s work has been less reliably preserved throughout history, a great deal of it still exists. Museums that hide behind the excuse of a “lack” of work by women are perpetuating a lie that has been debunked by innumerable feminist art historians since Linda Nochlin’s famous 1971 essay, <a href="https://www.artnews.com/art-news/retrospective/why-have-there-been-no-great-women-artists-4201/">Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?</a></p> <p>Writing in 2015, art historian Griselda Pollock <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-national-gallery-is-erasing-women-from-the-history-of-art-42505">explained</a> evidence of women artists is “there in black and white” in exhibition and sales records in the 19th century. “This is the primary evidence. It cannot be contradicted. But it has been consistently ignored by 20th-century art historians and 21st-century museum curators.”</p> <p>The National Gallery’s continued reliance on outdated art history is a failure of its duty as a steward of the British public’s art collection. Museums, particularly those like the National Gallery which receive significant public funds, have the responsibility to accurately communicate the history and relevance of the objects they own. They should also continue to innovate and respond to cultural changes. </p> <p>A museum whose collection is less than 1% female is hardly representative of a country whose population is 50% female. Nor is it representative of a history of art which, while still not offering equal opportunities for men and women, certainly fostered an abundance of pioneering women artists.</p> <p><em>Image credits: Getty Images</em></p> <p><em>This article originally appeared on <a href="https://theconversation.com/galleries-continue-to-erase-women-artists-in-their-blockbuster-exhibitions-184988" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a>. </em></p>

Art

Placeholder Content Image

5 blockbuster movies hitting the big screen in 2022

<p dir="ltr">After a slow two years due to the pandemic, the world of blockbuster cinema is revving back up in 2022. </p><p dir="ltr">With 2021 going out with a bang after the releases of <em>No Time to Die</em>, <em>Dune</em>, <em>The Matrix Resurrections</em> and many more, 2022 cinema has some big shoes to fill. </p><p dir="ltr">With countless blockbusters on the calendar for 2022, here are just five highly anticipated releases to add to this year’s must-watch list. </p><p dir="ltr" role="presentation"><strong>1. The Batman</strong></p><p dir="ltr">The latest instalment from DC Comics comes in the form of <em>The Batman</em>, as the dark and gritty version of the superhero flick is not one to miss. </p><p dir="ltr">Starring Robert Pattinson as Batman/Bruce Wayne, this highly anticipated movie has been gathering buzz since the first trailer was released in October last year. </p><p dir="ltr">The film boasts an all-star cast including Paul Dano, Colin Farrell and Peter Sarsgaard, and is due to hit cinemas in March.  </p><p></p><p dir="ltr"><strong>2. Top Gun: Maverick</strong></p><p dir="ltr">36 years after the success of <em>Top Gun</em>, the sequel is due to hit the big screen in May. </p><p dir="ltr">After a two-year delay due to Covid, <em>Top Gun: Maverick</em> will see Tom Cruise jump back into his iconic role for another high-stakes mission. </p><p dir="ltr">The film is directed by Joseph Kosiniski, and also stars Jon Hamm, Val Kilmer and Jennifer Connelly. </p><p></p><p dir="ltr" role="presentation"><strong>3. Jurassic World: Dominion</strong></p><p dir="ltr">In the third instalment of the <em>Jurassic World</em> trilogy, humanity must grapple with dangerous genetically enhanced reptiles on the loose. </p><p dir="ltr">The film sees the return of Chris Pratt, while also featuring nostalgic cameos from Sam Neill, Laura Dern and Jeff Goldblum. </p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38;margin-top: 0pt;margin-bottom: 0pt"><em>Jurassic World: Dominion</em> is due to hit cinemas in June<span style="font-size: 11pt;font-family: Arial;color: #000000;background-color: transparent;font-weight: 400;font-style: normal;text-decoration: none;vertical-align: baseline">. </span></p><p></p><p dir="ltr"><strong>4. Elvis</strong></p><p dir="ltr">Australian director Baz Luhrmann is taking on one of the most famous musicians in <em>Elvis</em>. </p><p dir="ltr">Austin Butler will be playing the iconic singer, with Tom Hanks playing his manager Colonel Tom Parker. </p><p dir="ltr">Other Aussie stars such as Olivia DeJonge, Richard Roxburgh and David Wenham are also joining the cast, with the film set to be released in June.</p><p></p><p dir="ltr"><strong>5. Avatar 2</strong></p><p dir="ltr">More than 10 years after James Cameron’s revolutionary film <em>Avatar</em> was released, the sequel is due to hit the big screen in 2022. </p><p dir="ltr">In the first of many sequels, familiar faces from the first movie, such as Sam Worthington and Zoe Saldana, are due to return to their iconic roles. </p><p dir="ltr">While there is no official trailer for the film yet, the <em>Avatar</em> Twitter account has shared stunning concept art images with fans to get them excited for the next instalment.</p><p dir="ltr">Fans will still have a while to wait for the film, however, with a release date expected in December. </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">ICYMI — Check out these stunning concept art images from Avatar 2! <a href="https://t.co/QVVK8cVU21">pic.twitter.com/QVVK8cVU21</a></p>— Avatar (@officialavatar) <a href="https://twitter.com/officialavatar/status/1437807131856564227?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 14, 2021</a></blockquote><p dir="ltr"><em><span id="docs-internal-guid-1a70098f-7fff-e12b-b99d-6680b65dfd7e">Image credits: DC Comics / 6th &amp; Idaho Productions / Paramount Pictures</span></em></p>

Movies

Placeholder Content Image

5 blockbuster movies you didn’t know were based on books

<p><span style="font-weight: 400;">So many books have been turned into movies that the question of which was better has become quite divisive. While it can be pretty obvious which books most film adaptations are based on, there are some that can overshadow their source material and come as quite a surprise.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Here are five movies you may be surprised to know were based on books.</span></p> <p><strong>1. Nothing Lasts Forever became Die Hard</strong></p> <p><em><span style="font-weight: 400;">Nothing Lasts Forever</span></em><span style="font-weight: 400;">, written by Roderick Thorp, was inspired by </span><em><span style="font-weight: 400;">The Towering Inferno</span></em><span style="font-weight: 400;"> which also features a skyscraper on fire. The main character, retired NYPD detective Joe Leland, was chased through the ashes of the skyscraper by a group of gun-toting terrorists.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">When it was later adapted into </span><em><span style="font-weight: 400;">Die Hard</span></em><span style="font-weight: 400;">, there were a few changes made.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Though both stories feature NYPD detectives facing off against terrorists inside a skyscraper on Christmas Eve, the film changed the protagonist’s name from Joe Leland to John McClane, featured a younger version of the character and changed the ending to a happier one.</span></p> <p><strong>2. From The Short-Timers to Full Metal Jacket</strong></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Stanley Kubrick took the 1979 novel </span><em><span style="font-weight: 400;">The Short-Timers</span></em><span style="font-weight: 400;"> and adapted it into </span><em><span style="font-weight: 400;">Full Metal Jacket</span></em><span style="font-weight: 400;">. Though both stories are set during the Vietnam War and feature soldiers going from boot camp to the frontline, Kubrick’s film rearranged the novel’s structure to create a more cohesive and tragic story.</span></p> <p><strong>3. There Will Be Blood came from Oil!</strong></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">The Academy Award-winning movie </span><em><span style="font-weight: 400;">There Will Be Blood</span></em><span style="font-weight: 400;"> is a loose adaptation of Upton Sinclair’s 1927 novel </span><em><span style="font-weight: 400;">Oil!</span></em><span style="font-weight: 400;"> While director Paul Thomas Anderson was a fan of the book, he only used the novel’s first 150 pages in the film. Instead, he took the story in a different direction to focus on self-made oil tycoon Daniel Plainview, played by Daniel Day-Lewis, rather than the tycoon’s son.</span></p> <p><strong>4. Mrs. Doubtfire: Alias Madame Doubtfire</strong></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">The hit comedy </span><em><span style="font-weight: 400;">Mrs. Doubtfire</span></em><span style="font-weight: 400;"> was adapted from British author Anne Fine’s young adult novel </span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><em>Alias Madame Doubtfire</em></span><span style="font-weight: 400;">. Both share a similar plot, where a man who has gone through a messy divorce and has limited time with his family, dresses like an old woman and takes a job as his kids’ nanny.</span></p> <p><strong>5. Psycho to Psycho</strong></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">After paying $9,500 for the film rights to Robert Bloch’s novel </span><em><span style="font-weight: 400;">Psycho </span></em><span style="font-weight: 400;">in 1959, Alfred Hitchcock even bought every available copy of the book in the US to keep the general public in the dark. The studio was against the adaptation, feeling its source material was highly offensive, so Hitchcock used his own money to finance the film, his own crew to make it, and decided to shoot it in black-and-white to keep costs down.</span></p>

Books

Placeholder Content Image

The blockbuster drug that could prevent Alzheimer's – why has it been kept secret?

<p>A pharmaceutical company discovered that its drug could prevent Alzheimer’s disease, but kept the finding under the radar for four years, it has been revealed.</p> <p>The<span> </span><em><a rel="noopener" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/pfizer-had-clues-its-blockbuster-drug-could-prevent-alzheimers-why-didnt-it-tell-the-world/2019/06/04/9092e08a-7a61-11e9-8bb7-0fc796cf2ec0_story.html?utm_term=.8c9fa2c71406" target="_blank">Washington Post</a> </em>reported that American pharmaceutical company Pfizer chose not to publish its finding that its anti-inflammatory drug Enbrel, which is used to treat rheumatoid arthritis, “could potentially safely prevent, treat and slow progression of Alzheimer’s disease”.</p> <p>In 2015, a team of researchers inside the company found that Enbrel appeared to reduce the risk of Alzheimer’s disease by 64 per cent based on an analysis of hundreds of thousands of insurance claims. Researchers in the inflammation and immunology division urged Pfizer to conduct a clinical trial to verify the drug’s efficacy, which is estimated to cost US$80 million.</p> <p>“Enbrel could potentially safely prevent, treat and slow progression of Alzheimer’s disease,” read an internal company document dated February 2018.</p> <p>However, after three years of internal reviews, Pfizer decided against making the data public. The company said the likelihood of a successful clinical trial is low, as the drug does not directly reach brain tissue.</p> <p>According to company spokesperson Ed Harnaga, the decision was solely based on the fact that the findings failed to meet “rigorous scientific standards”.</p> <p>Pfizer said the data was not made public because it might mislead outside scientists.</p> <p>However, researchers said the company should at least make the findings available to a broader audience. “It would benefit the scientific community to have that data out there,” said Keenan Walker, an assistant professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins.</p> <p>“Whether it was positive data or negative data, it gives us more information to make better informed decisions.”</p> <p>Bobbie Farsides, professor of clinical and biomedical ethics at Brighton and Sussex Medical School in London said Pfizer has a responsibility to disclose the positive side effect of the drug. “Having acquired the knowledge, refusing to disclose it to those who might act upon it hides a potential benefit, and thereby wrongs and probably harms those at risk of developing Alzheimer’s by impeding research.”</p> <p>The difficulty of getting regulatory approval to use a drug for a completely different disease may also play a part in the company’s decision to keep the findings a secret, said Robert Field, a professor of law and health care management at Drexel University. He admitted that it is “frustrating that there may be a missed opportunity”.</p> <p>Alzheimer’s remains one of the most prevalent diseases among the ageing community. No clear cause, effective cure or preventive measure has been found for the disease so far.</p>

Mind