Stop this uncritical acceptance of ‘what is’ as ‘natural’! — Lionesses of Africa

By Lionesses of Africa Operations Department

Just over 50 years ago, a throw-away comment that there were no great women painters sparked the famous reply from Linda Nochlin in her 1971 essay:  “Why have there been no great women artists?” (here). Today in 2022, we seem no nearer to a level playing field in Art, as a recent exposé of art prices by Doctor Helen Gorrill, shows (here). Dr Gorrill was driven to research pricing in the Art world following comments made by the painter Georg Baselitz who claimed “women couldn’t paint!”, using as his proof the lower price their artwork commanded in comparison to that of men (here). That is not to say he doesn’t appreciate any women painters, being a self proclaimed fan of artist Artemisia Gentileschi (17th Century), although as we show later it would indeed be a brave man to say she couldn’t paint…

Nochlin’s point was that when faced with these throw away comments, one should not rise to the bait by searching for the few who have possibly squeezed their way through the noise or found a way around the male rules such as the writer George Elliot who used a male name to disprove the well known ‘fact’ that women could only write light hearted romances. But instead to dig into why there seems to be this disparity; this inequality; perhaps even, this possible lack of quality, to shine a light on why this could be the case; the possible iniquities; the inbuilt biases that have pushed 50% of the population to one side; where changes and improvements can be made, and possibly open up the opportunity for a new Marie Curie (double Nobel winning Scientist) of the Art world. This is not the same as admitting that these throw away comments are correct, as she wrote: “At a moment when all disciplines are becoming more self-conscious—more aware of the nature of their presuppositions as exhibited in their own languages and structures—the current uncritical acceptance of ‘what is’ as ‘natural’ may be intellectually fatal.”

For Nochlin, issues that faced women which might seem minor, in fact turn out to be a major barrier, such as one that sounds simple – not being allowed to study the nude right up until the late 19th Century – women were considered far too delicate for such sights! One only has to look at the brilliant David by Michelangelo to see the importance to Art of the total understanding of human form and muscle movement. A massive gap in women’s art development.

Likewise the lack of access to Artistic social gatherings and discussion was to Nochlin yet another barrier. “…the “fringe” requirements for major artists, which would have been, for the most part, both physically and socially closed to women…participating in the affairs of an academy, [ability to] exchange ideas with members of humanist circles, establish suitable relationships with patrons, travel widely and freely…” And then – “An enormous amount of self-confidence and worldly knowledge, as well as a natural sense of dominance and power…”.

All requirements for success that will not come as a surprise to any of our readers… That was 1971, has it changed since? Dr Gorrill’s exposé shows that “…despite leaps in gender equality since the days of the old masters, contemporary art by men sells for significantly more than work by women.”

Adams et al, show in their paper ‘Is Gender in the Eye of the Beholder?’ “[through their study of]1.5 million auction transactions in 45 countries, we document a 47.6% gender discount in auction prices for paintings.”, a serious discount, but then if you consider only the top 1% of women artists make it into the secondary (auction) market and they, the best of the women have such a discount – what of the other women who don’t make that hallowed top 1%? That is serious ‘survivorship bias’!

Dr Gorrill analysed over 5,000 artworks by men and women and found that: “For every £1 fetched by a male artist’s work, one by a woman gets just 10p – and even worse – the value of a painting increases when a man signs it and decreases when it’s a woman’s name on the canvas.”

Can we look at Art as a reflection of other areas where gender appears significant? As Nochlin wrote: “A simple question like “Why have there been no great women artists?” can, if answered adequately, create a chain reaction, expanding to encompass every accepted assumption of the field, and then outward to embrace history and the social sciences or even psychology and literature, and thereby, from the very outset, to challenge traditional divisions of intellectual Inquiry…”

It was that investment disparity of only 10p vs £1 that initially spiked our interest as we have begun to see the 3Q numbers starting to come out of Africa for PE and VC investments and no surprise, whatever the change in the total investment into African businesses, the investment into women owned or run businesses also comes close to that ratio!

Looking back to 2021 a very small portion – 6.5% of the funding in Africa went to start-ups with a female CEO (usually a Founder). That’s $1 in every $15 raised (here). For 2022 (up to 3Q), we so far see there is very little change. Of those who have raised their first $1mil round this year: “…three quarters of the start-ups in question have either a single male founder (51%) or an all-male founding team (22%). In contrast, single female founders (4%) and all-female founding teams (1%) represent only 5% of them; and there’s no sign of improvement over time. The rest (21%) are gender-diverse founding teams. As a direct result of this…women-led start-ups are massively underrepresented with only one in nine (11%). And this number is lower than in 2021 (16%).” From ‘Africa: The Big Deal’ (here)     

Is Art imitating life, or is life imitating Art?

It is too early to say where investment in women-founded and led businesses will end 2022, but so far there is nothing to suggest it will be any different from the figures recorded in 2021: “[where] male CEOs claimed 93% of the funding. 43% of the CEOs who raised have their alma mater on the continent. 82% of the money went to start-ups with a single male founder or an all-male founding team, versus 0.95% for their female counterparts.”

Note the mention of University. It turns out that is important (as we saw in the Art market too). 43% on the continent (yet raised only 28% of the total amount), with 57% going to a non-African university (raising a whopping 72%) (here). This lack of access is constantly mentioned as a reason for an inability to raise capital. The ‘Venture’ industry is actually quite small with most educated in the West where a ‘warm’ introduction goes a long way…

Then we have the continued discussion over the lack of women in the fund management industry as if that is the panacea. But whilst it is totally shocking how few women have a seat at this inner table, the wait for action on this seems eternal! Surely one invests into a fund and a particular group of fund managers because one assumes that they are able to sniff out the best deals and companies in which to invest. It seems strange that one needs to wait for women fund managers before investment flows into female companies. “One of the reasons why it’s been hard for female-founded companies to attract funding is that only a small percentage of venture capital dollars are controlled by female VCs,” said Elizabeth Edwards, founder and managing partner of H Venture Partners, a female-owned venture capital firm (here).

We simply cannot believe that any fund manager wakes up one morning and says: “Today I shall only invest in male businesses!”, or “I can’t invest in women because I have no women on my team!”. Impossible, yet the data is saying exactly that! As the AfDB’s Dr Jennifer Blanke said at the The Global Gender Summit 2019, Kigali: “We know that women are a good bet. We know they pay back. We know they run excellent businesses – and yet they are not getting financed” (here). Go Figure!

This eternal wait is also happening in the Art market as Dr Gorrill states: “…the gender discount may decrease over time as gender equality increases…”, the expectation that as wealth held in women’s hands increases, so too will their investment in female artists and so over time the discrepancy will lessen… What a bizarre argument surely! We have to wait for women to invest in women to level the playing field, because only they will be able to recognise ‘great’ in women’s painting…er…

Imposter Syndrome? SNAP! – As Nochlin writes:“…while great achievement is rare and difficult at best, it is still rarer and more difficult if, while you work, you must at the same time wrestle with inner demons of self-doubt and guilt and outer monsters of ridicule or patronizing encouragement, neither of which have any specific connection with the quality of the art work as such.” (here)

“Women are judged by what they’ve done in the past solely while men are being judged by what they say they’ll do in the future…Even in cases where I’ve trained male colleagues in this industry, I would be judged as less capable than those same colleagues.” That from Tokunboh Ishmael at Alitheia Capital (we are huge fans), who recently closed a $100 million gender-investment fund, from an interview with Bloomberg suitably entitled: “Female Startups Fight ‘Tomato Seller’ Cliche for Funds in Africa” (here). This ‘Tomato Seller’ cliché is a battle we are constantly having, not least because the UN constantly use such photos when discussing female entrepreneurs in Africa (see here), this is pure laziness with such a dangerous subconscious impact as it creates an illusion of an unrealistic ‘truth’, further perpetuating an “uncritical acceptance of ‘what is’ as ‘natural’.

With the world’s economies fast turning down, we fear that investors and the financial world will simply double down on their current investment philosophy, as shown by the data – when investment as a whole falls, investment in women’s business falls faster. Yet investors becoming more debt concerned; more worried about rising interest rates; more aware that high or ‘Unicorn’ valuations based on spectacular or even half decent future profit expectations cannot replace actual profit, should be looking less at propping up their creaking portfolios and more at those which bootstrapped their way to profitability; are not indebted; not weighed down; yet require finance to take full advantage of current market conditions to grow and thrive.

In our drive to open the eyes of all to the power, versatility and brilliance of the inspirational businesses run by our members we too shall not flinch as we constantly challenge the status quo, and until people’s eyes are opened to the fact that “the current uncritical acceptance of ‘what is’ as ‘natural’ [IS] intellectually fatal.”

In the words of Artemisia (here) when writing to a powerful (male) patron:

“I will show your Illustrious Lordship what a woman can do…

You will find the spirit of Caesar in the soul of a woman.”  

Now that is a Lioness ROARING for change!

Stay safe.