Women's art worth less?

Art and women have always gone together. I remember as a child walking aimlessly through the St. Louis Art Museum. Seeing those renaissance portraits of women moved me. Those stoic and scantily, clad women introduced me to the true form of beauty, away from the hypercritical eye of today's advertisers. It is interesting then, that women have seemed to always have a place in art on the canvas, but not necessarily in front of it.

This article in the economist highlights the vast differences between the price of art by male artists and by female artists. The differences are shocking. If you look at the bottom of the article, there is a chart that maps out the top ten highest paid artists for female and males. The most a female artist earned from a painting is around 10 million, and a male in comparison 8 times that. This correlates with the video we watched last class, but with a twist. This is a subjective worth, so why do people think that a piece of art done by a female is worth less than a piece of art done by a male?

The article highlights that there is change underfoot. Female artists are now included in exhibits and some avid collectors are now female and interested in the female perspective. But does this really indicate permanent change? Or does it indicative of the present and future struggles of women in an industry that has been dominated by men?