Wednesday, March 10, 2010

So, I'm taking this class called women in the arts, and we're examining closely the lives of women who didn't get enough credit for their artwork when they were working. I've found that so far, most of the articles that we have read in this class have seemed fairly accurate in their portrayal of the female artists, that is until we started studying Fanny Mendelssohn/Hensel. She had a brother, Felix, who was also a composer and was said to be the most influential person in Fanny's life, and judging by her letters to him, I would argue that this also is fairly accurate. However, in every article that I have read about the siblings (save for one), the author (who is often a feminist) will paint the portrait of Felix as the villain, the person who discourages Fanny not to publish her compositions. However, in an article that I read for today's class by someone of the name of Kimber, she presents a completely different take on things, with supporting evidence, unlike many of the other articles that I've read. Most of the other articles construct their arguments by speculation and speculation alone, and pick and choose the letters that support their theories from the letters between the Mendelssohn siblings, and completely disregard all other evidence that provides counters to their arguments.

Now, the people in my class read the ones without evidence, or with very little evidence, and automatically assume that this is the true story of Fanny, that her brother held her back from publishing, and completely criticize the article that actually provides evidence. I hate these people. This is the problem with taking feminist classes.