Looking to pad my coffers a little before I set sail into the wind, I've been doubling down on some of the freelance work, and alternating between art and literature projects to keep my brain was getting overwhelmed, Still today, I began the day with the Hudson Valley school and, when something else came back for edits, swiveled to Artemisia Gentileschi. Thus today, I have had one foot in the Baroque and one foot in American Romanticism most of the afternoon. (with a detour on Caravaggio a couple days ago, and my sights on Millais. ) Yesterday's work on Gentileschi was followed by Dickinson--a more general piece than the beast of a one on Guinevere as literary figure prior, but I couldn't help but start thinking about her and Artemesia, how both are, in most internet articles, mentioned first for their biographical details, and only second the ways their work was innovative.
Artemesias rape trial defined her for many, not her painting. Emily's life of seclusion and white ensemble similarly leads in when people start talking about her. Only if you are a a painter or a poet, do you progress beyond those things. I keep thinking about Sylvia Plath, always, and how her death overshadowed her work. And yet, in my limited previous knowledge of Caravaggio, I did not know that he was not only a convicted murderer and hothead, but a multiple murderer. As in more than one person. This seems to be, for him, a side note. A tiny piece of trivia when you dig into biographical details. Kind of like how very few people talk about William Burroughs killing his wife.
I guess, what gets remembered about us as artists, who knows? How history defines us, completely beyond our control. It made my head spin a little bit. Why do women's biographical detail lead the story, while men's are footnotes to their supposed genius?
