data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/709d3/709d32bf473783ce5e67e4043e3b19d3bb7be289" alt=""
There were two things in Nochlin's lecture that I thought were especially interesting. I liked how Nochlin compared Mary Cassatt to the compositional devices in Little Girl in a Blue Armchair (c. 1878, shown above on right). Nochlin pointed out that Cassatt was extremely aware of childhood and its discontents, as is evidenced in the painting and subject matter. The little girl is slumped in her chair - it's obvious that she is annoyed with the convention of portraiture and having to sit still (for a long time!) while her portrait is painted. The girl's resistant attitude is emphasized by her angular body within the composition: there's an interesting contrast between the angular body of the girl and the soft, circular body of the dog.
Nochlin paralleled this painting to the discontent that Cassatt felt in her own life. Like this little girl, Cassatt was also resistant to convention and tradition. As a suffragist and avant-garde artist, Cassatt defied the standards that were upheld by 19th century society. Cassatt's disregard for the tradition of painting is even emphasized in the unconventional perspective of Little Girl in a Blue Armchair; the viewpoint has been lowered so that the scene is viewed from the perspective of a child, not that of an adult.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/44b23/44b23a1cba94919e414398e307a587ca0fe5c4a5" alt=""
Did anyone else have a chance to hear Nochlin's lecture? What do you think of the two ideas I mentioned?