Women in Art – Illustrations, Part 1

View Comments

• I'm female, and I don't have flawless dimensions, but I don't see any problem with the art represented here. :/ There are quite a few different perspectives shown here. And the title of this blog IS "Women in Art"--not "Pictures by Female Artists".
  And yes, while it would have been interesting to include pictures of more types of women, it seems from the opening description that the focus here was meant to be on the different artistic and technical approaches many artists took to depict the same subject.
  If the subject had been "lilies" in stead of "women", would people have started arguing because not every species of that flower was represented? Would you ignore the differences in each artist's technique and approach because artists had depicted tiger lilies but not goldband lilies? Subject matter isn't the only area in which one may find artistic variation.
  I'm personally attracted to only a few pieces on this page, but I can still admit to creativity in many of these artists' works. An intriguing collection. :)

• I think that Zain made a very valid point of view that I hadn't considered before.
  I don't think that anybody should be bashing anyone else who chose to comment on this website.
  All the art shown here is both beautiful and creative, not at all meant to offend women in any way.

  I can see if it showed women doing stereotypical things, one would have a reason to be upset.
  But it doesn't. All these pictures do is show women as the beautiful creatures they are.

• i think these are pretty cool pieces of art, and i dont really have a strong opinion either way on this whole argument. However i will like to say that not really anyone considers the countless pieces of classical art from the rennaisance portraying women as sexist, so why these? And i don't believe that guys think that michaelangelo's "David" (a statue of a naked dude) as sexist either. Everyone needs to relax about this, its just art.

• You Sir are amazing! I tip my hat to you.

• your comments seem quite petty to me..hardly any of it is actualy about the art. in one of the artists pics i could see how some people could view it as sexist..the one from Aeiko, with the girl and the gun and ammo looks like a pin up to me personaly. but they are all very pretty. everyone should be free to say what they want and compiment or criticize the work as they please. but keep it about the art. not personal arguments... so I will start with this

  I like the ugly pretty work done by Adam Spizak I would not change the girl with the knife and the wave in the background for anything; its very stunning in a odd way. although i would like to see some type of pain in the one with the girl cutting her leg. she has tears but the face as more of a "oops you caught me" type look..

  the work by Yu Cheng Hong is very good as well. i like how technology, thought, and music were mixed together so bluntly in that white picture. and i like the subtle earthly tones in the pink asian picture; the bronze bells were a lovely touch.. but the top pic of his work...that pink one with the white bird..the face creeps me out.. how the lips and the nose shoot out at you..

  all of the work is very nice done by very talented people...i suck at art myself. lol

• Very cool, loving the different ways of showing the beauty of the female form! Some great styles going on.....

• I'm curious about another side of "Jennifer's" comment--
  Really? Believable women? Believable people, period? In ART?

  You haven't seen much in the way of art or illustration, have you.

  The human form--for BOTH sexes--has idealized, fetishized, idolized, altered and exaggerated since humans first began creating artwork. Look up the Venus of Willendorf. Seriously.

  And (and I swear I have to say this at every single forum displaying art I stumble upon; I guess I'll have to keep saying it until other people do my work for me), I'm going to have to say this--the IDEALS represented by the artists creating a work are NEVER going to capture what is IN reality. EVER. Whatever is rare or unique in any given population--be it girth or health, hair color, eye color, or anything else, is usually an element that shows up to represent the ideal beauty. Whatever features a culture focuses on will always be played up. Even the grotesque forms created and painted by the artists enamored of less-traditionally beautiful forms are, in some way, an extension of what we find beautiful. Perhaps they're a perversion of what we currently value, and the artist is using this for a particular effect, or perhaps the elements shown are exactly what the artist personally does find beautiful, unique, interesting, or appealing.

  The only art that has *ever* shown "reality" in any shape of the word is the unaltered photograph, and really, that had quite a short run all things considered. I suppose you could consider those artists who are adherents to Realism, but there is still a bit of an idealistic gloss to most of those works as well.

  Remember, the people creating this kind of work--the GOOD people creating it--usually aren't out there just to "get-cha" or make you feel bad about yourself. Artists make their works for money, or for themselves, or for friends, and they're inspired by visual cues that excite and fascinate themselves and their clients. What you see is the culmination of studying art, researching concepts, and developing strong emotions to different ideas. Illustrators like the ones above idealize not because they hate humanity, but because they are moved by it, and are trying to express their feelings without words.

• Bring it on, Yu Chen Hong! Love the one with the guitar! (yes, posters there are different artists on display here...doh).

• Everything was pretty good... the owner of brandnu.com's work isn't very good at all - or at least it isn't in the previews! Really - don't show mediocre artists when this is an article about 'good art'.

• Thank you jennifer...I agree.