Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
IN ARTISTIC CAREERS
NOTE: This is the accepted version of an article published in Sociology Compass. The Version
Abstract: Women artists are systematically disadvantaged across cultural fields. Although some
of these disadvantages resemble gender inequalities in non-artistic work, such as lower pay,
underrepresentation, work-family conflict, and symbolic devaluation, others are unique to artistic
careers. In this essay, I extend Acker’s work on the implicit gendering of the ideal-typical worker
to show how gender implicitly organizes social expectations around artists and artistic work. I
highlight themes emerging from past research on gender relations in artistic careers, which suggest
that the ideal-typical artist builds on a masculine model in at least three ways. First, collective
understandings of creative genius center a masculine subject. Second, bias in aesthetic evaluations
systematically favours men over women. Third, the structure of artistic careers, particularly the
need for entrepreneurial labor and self-promotion, requires artists to engage in behaviors that are
more socially acceptable in men than in women.
1
Gender inequalities in artistic and creative careers take many forms. Women are
underrepresented as both practicing artists and canonical figures in most genres of art, music, and
literature (Cowen, 1996; Parker & Polock, 2013 [1981]; Tuchman & Fortin, 1984; Bielby, 2004;
Piitre, 1991). Women artists and musicians experience difficulty obtaining paid work (Bielby &
Bielby, 1996; Goldin & Rouse, 2000), earn less on average than men (Menger, 1999), and
sometimes experience overt discrimination (Bielby & Bielby, 1996; Brooks & Daniluk, 1998;
Leonard, 2007). Judgments of aesthetic quality by critics, peers, audiences, and support workers
systematically devalue women (Leonard, 2007; Millar, 2008; Pheterson et al., 1971; Stokes,
2015); and, life histories of accomplished women artists reveal steep personal and emotional
costs of struggling to succeed in male-dominated artistic fields (Kosmala, 2007; Midler, 1980).
Collectively, these findings suggest that the spaces where women artists work, create, and
perform are not designed around their needs. Yet, scholars who study creative careers have not
yet synthesized this literature to draw out an important underlying social dynamic: the ideal-
typical artist, like the ideal-typical worker (Acker 1990), is implicitly masculine.
This essay reviews scholarship on gender inequalities among creative and artistic
producers, using Acker’s (1990) work on gendered organizations as an analytic lens. Acker
argues that organizational texts like job descriptions and workplace policies assume a masculine
subject; the ideal-typical worker therefore appears gender-neutral, but actually embodies
stereotypically masculine traits. This important insight—that organizations, job descriptions, and
career paths can have gendered qualities—has not been well integrated into scholarship on
artistic labor, but stands to improve our understanding of artistic work. Understanding how the
multiple artistic fields, and points toward general principles explaining how women artists are
2
disadvantaged. Applying Acker’s analytical lens to artistic and creative work as a unique case
also allows gender scholars to better understand structural differences between artistic and non-
artistic work.
I begin by highlighting key connections between the ideal-typical worker and the ideal-
typical artist. Artistic careers demand total commitment from incumbents and thus create the
same gendered time pressures that exist in non-artistic workplaces (Nochlin 1989). I then use
literature on gender and artistic careers to unpack three undertheorized ways in which the ideal-
typical artist is implicitly masculinized. First, collective understandings of creative genius center
a masculine subject. Second, collective evaluations of aesthetic quality systematically favor men
over women. Third, the need for artists to do entrepreneurial labor privileges practices that are
more socially acceptable in men than women, such as self-promotion and risk-taking.
Notably, these inequalities suggest multiple forms of gendering that occur concurrently,
and which may or may not intersect with each other. As I will argue, the expectation of total
commitment and creative genius suggest that the ideologies associated with artists are symbolic
aligned with masculinity. The fact that collective judgments of aesthetic quality are gender-
biased suggests the social structuring of perception as another mechanism of gendering. Finally,
work-family conflict and the need for entrepreneurial labour suggest that the structure of artistic
careers privileges men artists. Progress on only one of these dimensions—for example, de-
therefore represent only partial progress toward gender equality in artistic careers.
Deconstructing how the artist archetype is gendered matters because gender inequality is
easily disguised by the rhetoric surrounding creative scenes. What appears to be audience
preference or innocuous differences in taste can actually be the subtle, systematic favoring of
3
men artists and creative workers. In the case of any individual woman artist, there might be a
plausible explanation for lower earnings, lesser opportunities, or artistic work that is valued less
highly than work by comparable men; yet, in the aggregate, gender inequality among artists is
clearly a systemic issue (Cowen 1996, Nochlin 1989, Parker and Pollock 2013[1981]).
understandings and much early gender scholarship. Acker’s (1990) work represents an important
conceptual shift toward viewing gender as also embedded in social structures (Britton and Logan
2008). Gender scholars came to view jobs, organizations, and hierarchies as implicitly gendered,
as they require workers with gendered characteristics and who engage in gendered practices
(Acker, 1990; Fudge & Vosko, 2001; Kelly et al., 2010). Acker analyzes the “abstract worker”
imagined by organizational texts such as job descriptions and workplaces policies, and argues
the abstract worker is actually a man, and it is the man's body, its sexuality,
minimal responsibility in procreation, and conventional control of
emotions that pervades work and organizational processes. Women's
bodies—female sexuality, their ability to procreate and their pregnancy,
breast-feeding, and child care, menstruation, and mythic "emotionality"—
are suspect, stigmatized, and used as grounds for control and exclusion
(Acker 1990, p. 152).
Acker thus argues that workplaces are designed around habitual ways of being and acting
that center men’s experiences. Bureaucratic workplaces rely on a separation between the public
and private spheres, which advantages men who assume less responsibility in the home.
emotionality, which are all culturally associated with femininity. In short, shared understandings
of an “ideal worker” more closely resembled shared ideas about masculinity than femininity
(Acker, 1990; Kelly et al., 2010). This disadvantages women workers; employers and managers
4
more easily value and reward men because they more closely resemble employers’ implicit
Shared understandings of the ideal-typical artist differ from images of the ideal worker.
Artistic creation rarely occurs within the bureaucratic organizations that Acker (1990) describes,
or within the “standard employment relationship” (Fudge & Vosko, 2001) of full-time waged
work on an employer’s premises. More commonly, artists are freelance and contract workers, or
self-employed. Additionally, many artists are not workers at all; they are amateurs or hobbyists
oriented toward peer recognition rather than earnings (Bourdieu 1993, Finnegan 1989, Finney
1993). The ideal-typical worker is dedicated to an organization, and suppresses his personal life
and emotions in service of that organization’s goals (Acker, 1990; Kelly et al., 2010); the ideal-
typical artist is unconstrained by conventional society, seeks individual status and recognition,
and pursues creative endeavours that are not tied to a particular organization (Beebe, 1964;
as artists and their advantages in pay and evaluation (Bielby & Bielby, 1996; Clawson, 1999)—
suggests that shared understandings of an ‘artist’ privilege masculinity rather than femininity.
But, these important structural differences between the ideal worker and the artist archetype
suggest that the mechanisms underlying gender inequality in artistic careers differ from those
How, then, is the ideal-typical artist implicitly masculinized? Men outnumber women as
creative producers in almost all artistic fields (Bielby, 2004; Cowen, 1996; Menger, 1999; Parker
& Polock, 2013 [1981]; Tuchman & Fortin, 1984). Notably, life histories of influential women
artists often emphasize how their atypical life circumstances facilitated their success; many
significant women artists had indulgent parents who allowed their daughters to receive artistic
5
instruction, or were childless and therefore had the freedom to pursue the arts (Cowen 1996,
Parker & Pollock 2013). Others were simply unusually determined and ‘masculine’ in their
disposition (Kosmala, 2007; Midler, 1980). Importantly, biographers and critics justify these
women’s artistic careers by highlighting their differences from other women, suggesting
contradiction in the very notion of a “woman artist” (Cowen, 1996; Piitre, 1991). In short, gender
is written into our shared beliefs about art and artistry. But what are the key junctures at which
The differences previously outlined between the ideal-typical artist and the ideal worker
are important, but there are also key points of similarity around the ideas of total commitment
and work-family conflict. The ideal-typical artist, like the ideal-typical worker, is expected to
make a “total commitment” to his vocation (Kelly et al., 2010; Midler, 1980; Stokes, 2013). The
ideal worker is expected to prioritize his job over his personal life and perform visible
commitment to his organization (Acker, 1990; Cooper, 2000; Kelly et al., 2010); similarly, the
ideal-typical artist is expected to prioritize artistic creation above all else, and perform visible
commitment to art as a “passion” or a “calling” (Beebe, 1964; Dobrow, 2012; Stokes, 2013).
This expectation of passionate commitment runs through classic works of cultural sociology; for
example, Bourdieu (1993) notes that audiences and support workers expect artists to feign
commitment to art is the only motivation to which artists may admit publicly.
Nochlin (1989) suggests that women have historically been discouraged from developing a
single competency in depth, as moderate competence in multiple areas was considered more
suitable for women who needed skills in multiple domestic tasks. The freedom to focus on a
6
single skill, Nochlin suggests, was reserved for men.
The structure of artistic careers, like the structure of bureaucratic workplaces, also
conflicts with child care and domestic responsibilities (Piitre, 1991; Stokes, 2013). In many
cultural fields, such as film, television, and theatre, work is organized around project-based
arrangements that alternate between periods of little or no work, and periods of intense work
(Caves, 2000)—for example, 14-hour days on a film set, alternating with unemployment
between projects. Other creative work occurs at inconvenient times; for example, chefs and
many performing artists must work in the evenings, when customers wish to eat dinner and
audiences wish to attend plays, concerts, and other cultural events (Harris and Giuffre 2015).
Creative and artistic careers can also require extensive travel and last-minute availability—for
photo shoot on short notice—which creates conflict with personal and family responsibilities
Acker (1990) famously suggested the flexible and non-standard working arrangements
might ease work-family conflict, and thus benefit women. Contrary to her expectation, these
non-standard, project-based and travel-based artistic careers seem no easier to combine with
child care, elder care, or other social-reproductive responsibilities than a standard, full-time job
(Harris and Guiffre, 2015; Parker and Pollock 2013[1983]). In some cases, public-private
conflict in artistic careers may also be exacerbated because many artists perform demanding
artistic labor in addition to working a full-time job (Menger 1999). Indeed, literature on women
major barriers to gender equality. Women artists experience more frequent career interruptions
due to child-rearing (Stohs 1992), and many women artists feel pressured to prioritize their
7
family’s needs before their artistic careers (Brooks and Danliuk 1998: Piitro, 1991).
Unsurprisingly, many historically successful women artists deliberately avoided bearing and
raising children because of the toll it would take on their art (Cowen 1996, Pollock and Parker
2013[1981]).
These are two important similarities between the artist archetype and the ideal-typical
worker: an expectation that individuals will perform visible, total commitment, and a career
structure that creates conflict between vocational responsibilities and social reproductive labor.
Yet, literature on gender relations in creative fields suggests that the ideal-typical artist is also
gendered in ways not fully elaborated by scholarship on gender, work, and organizations (Acker,
1990; Cooper, 2000; Kelly et al., 2010; Fudge & Vosko, 2001). In particular, the artist archetype
is symbolically masculinized through: (1) an expectation of creative genius, (2) gender bias in
In contemporary Western society, shared images of the artist center an individual creative
genius, removed from mundane aspects of everyday life (Becker, 1982). Beebe (1964) conducts
Beebe (1964) argues that the artist archetype centers an individual who experiences life
more deeply than others, and has difficulty fitting into polite society as others misunderstand his
genius. Art and artistry, in this view, take on quasi-sacred properties and transcend the everyday
8
(Eyerman, 2006; Nochlin, 1989), but also disconnect the artist from society, and from rules and
view men than women as transcending the ordinary and achieving greatness (Cowen, 1996;
Ocshe, 1990; Parker & Polock, 2013 [1981]). For example, Schmidt (2015) aggregates data from
instructors, and finds that students more commonly describe men than women as “genius,”
across all disciplines. Similar themes are evident in literature on artistic fields. Nochlin (1989)
argues that shared definitions of “genius” are implicitly masculinized. Similarly, Parker and
Pollock (2013 [1981]) observe in the title of their book, Old Mistresses, that we lack a feminine
equivalent to the term “old masters,” which describes canonical male painters and sculptors.
Indeed, in the Renaissance era men argued that women artists should be limited to painting
simple subjects like flowers and fruit, while men should do major historical and allegorical
works because "men are the true artists, they have genius; women have only taste. Men are busy
with serious works of the imagination on a grand scale but women are occupied in minor,
delicate, personal pastimes" (Parker & Polock, 2013 [1981], p.13). In a study of musical practice
in a community orchestra, Finnegan (2007 [1989], p.160) notes, “it is commonly believed,
especially within the classical music world, that composers worthy of that name are either dead
or (if alive) men of genius far removed from ordinary life” (emphasis added). And, women
musicians routinely report that audiences and support workers assume that they are
instrumentalists, while their male bandmates are the songwriters and creative forces behind the
9
creative vision is attributed to men more readily than women. Food is a historically feminine
domain, yet men are credited with elevating cuisine to art (Johnston & Baumann, 2007; Harris &
Giuffre, 2015). In fashion design, Stokes (2015) finds that media coverage frequently frames
clothing by male designers (specifically, gay men) as creative, visionary, and artistic, while
women designers are praised for mundane characteristics like the “wearability” of their designs.
These empirical findings point toward a broader underlying process: that we associate creative
because it often suggests antisocial behavior, which is more socially acceptable in men than
women. The artist archetype often involves moodiness, sensitivity, eccentricity, and a limited
ability to function in ordinary society (Beebe, 1964). Becker (1982, p. 14) similarly notes that the
“romantic myth of the artist suggests that people with such gifts cannot be subjected to the
constraints imposed on other members of society”. In fact, the foil against which Becker frames
This long-standing association of creativity with reclusion and eccentricity has gendered
implications because antisocial behavior is more easily excused in men than women (Ridgeway,
2011). Literature on gender and workplaces finds that managers overlook rudeness, aggression,
and poor social graces from high-performing men, while requiring women to be nicer in order to
wield influence and authority (Eagly et al., 1992; Kanter, 1977; Ridgeway, 2001). Artists’
biographies and artistic works suggest similar dynamics (Brooks & Daniluk, 1998). Midler
(1980), shows that George Eliot’s female artist-heroes continually confront the fact that ego and
temper in the pursuit of greatness are expected of men, but surprising in women, and reads this
10
Kurt Cobain famously struggled with addiction and depression, criticized the music industry in
press interviews, and often retreated from social contact; yet, he was romanticized as a “tortured
artist” while his wife and fellow musician Courtney Love —who did many of the same things,
often with Cobain—is widely portrayed as out-of-control and untalented. Women who retreat
from society and ignore others’ needs to focus on artistic creation are often considered selfish,
symbolic gendering into shared understandings of the artist archetype. Transformative creative
potential is more strongly associated with masculinity than femininity, and reclusion,
temperamentality, and antisocial behavior are more socially acceptable in men than women.
The ideal-typical artist both seeks out and depends on widespread recognition and
acclaim from multiple publics, including peers, critics, media, and audiences (Bourdieu, 1993).
Artists generally want their works to be seen, heard, and read. They continually seek new
audiences, and depend on multiple ancillary workers (e.g. editors, agents, publicists, promoters,
art dealers) to appreciate and champion their work (Becker, 1982; Caves, 2000). Artists must
also continually establish and defend their works’ aesthetic value (Baumann, 2007; Becker,
Unfortunately for women artists, perception and evaluation are structured by gender.
Women are generally evaluated less favorably than men across multiple domains of social life.
On average, women are perceived as less competent and less authoritative than men (Nieva &
Gutek, 1980; Ridgeway, 2011). Evaluations of the same objects and texts—résumés, paintings,
11
and online courses, for example—are on average higher when those objects are attributed to men
Empirical findings suggest that similar processes of undervaluation occur in artistic fields
and evaluations of aesthetic legitimacy. Women artists, musicians, and writers describe being
taken less seriously than men, being treated as novices when they are actually skilled
professionals, and having to work harder than men for equal recognition (Cowen, 1996; Leonard,
2007; Midler, 2980; Miller, 2014). Indeed, many women artists adopt male or gender-neutral
names to avoid gender-based symbolic devaluation, such as George Eliot (pen name of Mary
Ann Evans), J.K. Rowling (whose publishers urged her to use initials to avoid revealing her
gender), and Currer, Ellis and Acton Bell (better known as Charlotte, Emily, and Anne Brontë).
This perception bias is compounded because women are systematically sanctioned for seeking
attention (Ridgeway 2011), and may therefore be less active and enthusiastic in the self-
Evaluative bias is particularly problematic for women artists because aesthetic quality is
inherently ambiguous (Hirsch, 1972). There are no definitive standards for what makes “good”
art, literature, film, or music. Participants in artistic fields develop practices to reduce this
uncertainty; Baumann (2007) emphasizes that the development of a shared critical discourse is
central to artistic fields, and argues that this discourse creates mutually understood evaluative
subjectivity. Notably, when individuals make judgments in conditions of uncertainty, they are
more likely to draw on intuitive, unexamined criteria such as gender stereotypes (Ridgeway,
2011; Steinberg, 1990; Miller, 2014). Creating more structured conditions of evaluation—for
example, formal application processes and scoring systems for allocating public arts grants or
12
performance slots at folk festivals (Miller 2014), or “blind auditions” for symphony orchestras
(Goldin & Rouse, 2000)—reduces gender inequality by drawing evaluators’ attention away from
artists’ gender and toward qualities of the artistic work itself. Yet, these formal evaluative
processes are the exception in most artistic fields, rather than the rule; and even in these cases,
Stokes (2015) refers to men’s advantage in developing recognition and esteem as “the
glass runway.” Unlike Williams’ (1992) concept of the glass escalator, which suggests
metaphor describes gendered processes of reward that are specific to creative careers: men are
pushed forward into the spotlight and showered with attention, facilitating increased recognition,
Lang and Lang (1988) suggest another mechanism underlying male artists’ greater
recognition: men’s family members posthumously preserve their works and legacy. For example,
male artists’ wives and daughters of many male artists organize retrospective exhibitions and
legacy scholarships that help to cement their place in the artistic cannon, while the surviving
families of female artists less systematically perform this preservationist work. If women artists
are sanctioned for soliciting positive attention while they are alive, and less likely to have this
attention sought by others on their behalf after their death, it is easy to see how women artists
As long as global evaluative bias favours men over women (Ridgeway, 2011),
evaluations of aesthetic quality will likely favor men as well. This positions the ideal-typical
artist as implicitly masculine, as his routine behaviors are more acceptable in men than women:
seeking out recognition from multiple stakeholders, and convincing others (both ancillary
13
creative workers such as art dealers and publicists, and family members who will preserve his
disproportionately on women’s appearance and sexuality. When evaluating women artists and
musicians, audiences often view talent and artistic prowess as incompatible with physical
attractiveness; for example, they assume that a successful woman musician used her
attractiveness as a “gimmick” (Miller 2014) or, worse, slept her way to the top (Bayton 1998,
Leonard 2007). Women artists, particularly in performance-based genres, may also face pressure
to manage and strategically deploy their sexuality as part of their public persona; for example,
when women musicians are asked to perform sexual availability and coquettish femininity for
audiences (Donze, 2009; Leonard 2007). This creates a double bind. Women performers who
refuse to perform sexual availability may be viewed as difficult to work with, and lose out on
performance opportunities; but, women who do foreground their sexuality may find that the
resulting attention ignores their actual work and talent, focuses on their appearance, and
ultimately harms their credibility. Additionally, some women artists may be unable to trade on
their sexuality, and may actually be negatively evaluated for not adequately adhering to norms of
feminine attractiveness—for example, when older women in Hollywood have difficulty finding
film roles (Lincoln and Allen 2004). This is another way that perception and evaluation of
women artists is gender-biased: others may perceive women artists through the lens of sexuality,
and filter their opinions through the general social expectations that women should always be
Overall, then, the social structuring of perception and evaluation disadvantages women:
first in at least two ways; women are globally perceived as less competent than men and,
14
relatedly, other actors in creative fields may attribute women’s success to their physical
attractiveness rather than their talent. Viewing artistic evaluation as inherently gendered
synthesizes findings from a range of cultural fields, which indicate that women and their
artworks are perceived as less aesthetically legitimate than men (Leonard, 2007; Pheterson et al.,
1971). These gender-biased evaluations of aesthetic quality are particularly damaging because
artistic careers depend heavily on reputation and prestige; recognition, buzz, or “symbolic
capital” (Bourdieu, 1993) is a key currency in cultural fields. If this currency is more readily
available to men than women, then artistic careers are systematically structured by gender, and
the ideal-typical artist who regularly and accumulates and uses this currency is symbolically
masculinized.
Artistic creation rarely occurs within a full-time employment relationship. Instead, artists
work in a number of irregular arrangements, including contract and freelance work, full or partial
subsidies (e.g. by obtaining a residency, patronage relationship, or public grant), and self-funding
artistic creation while working a non-artistic ‘day job’ (Becker, 1982; Caves, 2000; Menger,
1999). Most of these irregular work arrangements have an important commonality: they require
artists to do significant entrepreneurial labor to advance their careers and find exhibition,
publication, and performance opportunities. Writers must continually pitch their work to editors
and publishers; musicians actively seek out promoters and gigs; fashion designers continually
look for new projects (Stokes, 2013). In short, creative workers continually promote themselves
and their work to sponsors and funders, to ancillary creative workers who function as
The need for entrepreneurial labor symbolically aligns the artist archetype with
15
masculinity. Successful entrepreneurship requires individuals to take risks, self-promote, ask for
resources, and seek attention (Banks & Milestone, 2011; Tams, 2002), all of which are more
socially acceptable in men than women (Martin, 1998; Ridgeway, 2011). Women who ask for
raises (a behavior that resembles an artist asking for sponsorship or media attention) are
perceived more negatively than men engaging in the same behavior, and sometimes negatively
Because artist-entrepreneurs seek opportunities, resources, and attention, they face considerable
pressure to be continually available because those opportunities and resources may emerge at
unpredictable moments (Banks & Milestone, 2011; Stokes, 2013). Stokes (2013) outlines the
pressure that fashion designers face to attend social events outside of work time; notably, fashion
workers clearly experience such events as work commitments rather than leisure. The pressure to
be continually available for networking on top of one’s artistic practice, of course, assumes an
networks rather than formal hiring processes. Foster et al (2011) find that local booking agents
for music clubs share information about musicians they perceive as innovative rising stars; gig
booking thus occurs largely through word-of-mouth, rather than official applications.
Accordingly, musicians often cultivate relationships with club bookers (Cohen, 2013), much like
non-artistic entrepreneurs cultivate relationships with clients and potential new clients. With few
exceptions (e.g. structured audition processes to join a symphony orchestra (Goldin & Rouse,
2000)), performance and exhibition opportunities often occur outside of formal job descriptions
16
and hiring policies (Caves, 2000; Menger, 1999), suggesting that this informal hiring is the norm.
These informal social networks often advantage men. Social networks in artistic fields
can resemble ‘old boys clubs’ where information, resources and opportunities circulate through
men’s friendship networks and remain less accessible to women (Banks & Milestone, 2011;
Cohen, 2013; Finney, 1993). In the absence of clear, structured standards and hiring processes,
ancillary creative workers can easily base their decisions about which painters to show,
musicians to book, and screenwriters to hire on speculation and hunches about what audiences
will like. As formal, structured hiring and evaluating policies can reduce gender bias (Britton &
Logan, 2008; Goldin & Rouse, 2000; Steinberg, 1990; Miller, 2014), the informal networks
surrounding much artistic work create the risk of gender inequality. If the ideal-typical artist-
entrepreneur must be able to work and thrive in these network-based creative scenes, that suggest
Women in artistic scenes report significant skepticism of their abilities. Sargent (2009) describes
the considerable suspicion and resistance that women musicians face in a single environment:
music instrument and supply stores. Other women artists report skepticism from support
personnel such as bookers, promoters, and critics (Groce & Cooper, 1990; Harris & Giuffre,
2011; Leonard, 2007). On average, women are less confident in their artistic and musical
abilities than men (Wehr-Flowers, 2006). This has led to institutions such as girls’ rock camps,
which attempt to build girls’ and women’s confidence in their ability to produce original art,
music and culture (Giffort, 2011). Because the artist-entrepreneur requires unshakable faith in his
17
multiple artistic fields, we can view the ideal-typical artist as symbolically masculinized.
Overall, then, the need for artists to do entrepreneurial labor is implicitly masculinized
because entrepreneurial labor draws on practices that are more acceptable in men than women,
often occurs through informal networks that advantage men, and requires self-confidence that is
As I have shown, sociological literature on gender and artistic careers suggests numerous
ways in which cultural understandings of artists assume a masculine subject. Yet, significant
questions remain for future research. In particular, we know disappointingly little about how the
artist archetype and its gendered qualities vary across situations. In this essay, I have focused on
commonalities among artistic careers, such as the need for recognition and self-promotion; but,
artistic careers also exhibit important differences (Caves 2000), which may shape how gender is
built into shared assumptions about artists. For example, I have highlighted the intense level of
commitment required by artistic careers as evidence that the artist archetype is implicitly
masculine. Future scholarship might compare artistic fields requiring different levels of
Another useful project would be to compare gender relations in artistic genres with
historically different symbolic associations. Literature has long had feminine associations; in the
Victorian era, literature was viewed as suitable for middle-class women because it was refined,
not strenuous, and could be both written and read in the home (Midler 1980). To this day,
women read more than men (Christin 2012), and many canonical writers have been women. The
gendering of the ideal-typical poet or novelist is likely less masculinized and more feminized
18
than, say, the ideal-typical sculptor or abstract painter. Yet, it is still unclear whether these more
feminized symbolic associations actually translate into gender equality. Interestingly, research on
literary scenes still finds gender gaps in recognition, pay, and career length (Ekelund and
Börjesson, 2002; Tuchman and Fortin 1984), suggesting that much more research is needed to
We might also compare gender differences in “art worlds” like abstract painting and
haute couture with “craft worlds” (Becker 1982) like fan fiction and quilting, or compare fields
of mass production like Hollywood film to fields of “restricted production” (Bourdieu 1993) like
opera or classical music. Expectations of creative genius are particularly important to the fine
arts, while popular culture and craft worlds may have different standards of evaluation (Becker
1982, Bourdieu 1993). Aesthetic standards in craft worlds and in popular culture may de-center
creative genius (and thus, implicitly, masculinity), relative to fine arts genres. Some tentative
evidence finds that women are particularly disadvantaged in fine arts fields (Schmutz 2009),
Future research should also analyze gendered implications of the mechanisms through
which people produce art, convey it to audiences, and earn income from it. There is only one
standard employment relationship: a full-time job, with set hours, on an employer’s premises
(Fudge & Vosko, 2001). However, there are multiple non-standard employment relationships
(and collaborative relationships that are not employment relationships at all) in artistic fields,
some of which may center an implicitly masculine subject more strongly than others. For
in self-directed but precarious freelance and casual conditions of work? Acker (1990) suggested
19
that more flexible work arrangements would benefit women by lessening work-family conflict;
yet, more recent literature suggests that women are hit hardest by the shift to a temporary,
precarious, and on-call economy (Vosko 2000). This raises an important and as-yet unanswered
question: if artistic careers were shaped around women’s experiences and needs, what would the
In building these cross-case comparisons, it may be helpful to look at atypical cases; that
is, creative careers where women are advantaged. In fashion modeling, for example, women
models have higher average earnings than men, receive more media attention, and have access to
more work opportunities (Mears 2011). Modeling may therefore provide insight into what
creative careers might look like when they are built for and around women. However, the case of
modeling suggests that artistic careers that assume a feminine subject may even more precarious
than other artistic careers. Although women models earn more than men, models’ average
earnings are on average lower than earnings in other artistic fields (Mears 2011, Czerniawski
2015). Models also have sharply limited creative autonomy; they take direction from others (e.g.
clients, fashion designers, agents) and largely help to realize others’ creative vision rather than
developing and pursuing their own. Modeling is also available only to young, physically
attractive women (Czerniaswki 2015). The ideal-typical model is fairly clearly feminized; and, it
is quite telling that this atypical case of a symbolically feminized creative worker involves lower
pay, less autonomy, and more stringent physical requirements than most other creative careers.
CONCLUSION
In this paper, I have shown that literature on gender in artistic careers positions the ideal-
typical artist as implicitly symbolically masculinized. Some themes emerging from this literature
echo scholarship on gender and occupations; like the ideal worker, the ideal-typical artist should
20
be committed to his work, and prioritize it over personal and family commitments (Dobrow,
2012; Stokes, 2013). Yet, previous scholarship also suggests points of symbolic gendering that
are unique to artists. First, the association between art and creative genius is symbolically
masculinized because we associated transcendental genius with men, and excuse unpredictable
and antisocial behavior from men more easily than women. Second, the artist archetype suggests
masculinity because the ideal-typical artist relies on aesthetic evaluations from multiple publics
(peers, critics, audiences), which are systematically biased in favor of men. Finally, the ideal-
draws on practices that are more socially acceptable in men than women, and because artistic
entrepreneurship often occurs through informal social networks that advantage men.
Notably, these multiple intersections between gender and the ideal-typical artist suggest
different underlying social mechanisms. The ideologies associated with the artist archetype
privilege practices that are symbolically associated with masculinity. The structure of artistic
careers creates public-private conflict (or at least, does not solve the public-private conflict
availability that is difficult to combine with personal and family obligations. And, the social
structuring of perception introduces gender bias into collective evaluations of aesthetic quality.
I have also highlighted the need for comparisons across artistic fields to flesh out how,
when, and to what extent the artist archetype is gendered, and with what consequences. My focus
here has been on social processes that are broadly relevant to multiple types of artists, but there
are many important organizational differences between creative fields (Becker, 1982; Caves,
2000) and comparative scholarship that examines how the structure of cultural fields shapes
21
gender relations is unfortunately rare. Studying gender relations in artistic fields represents a
unique opportunity to synthesize literature on gender, work, and organizations with scholarship
on cultural sociology, creative labor, aesthetic evaluation, and artistic fields. This synthesis
represents a rich area of sociological inquiry, the surface of which has barely been scratched.
i
In popular culture, creative genius in male mathematicians is also particularly associated with eccentricity and
antisocial behavior; see, for example, the characterization of Sheldon Cooper in The Big Bang Theory, Alan Turing
in The Imitation Game, Will Hunting in Good Will Hunting, and John Nash in A Beautiful Mind.
22
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, Jobs, Bodies: A Theory of Gendered Organizations. Gender &
Society 4(2), pp.139-58.
Banks, M. and K. Milestone. (2011). Individualization, Gender and Cultural Work. Gender,
Work and Organization 18(1), pp.73-89.
Baumann, S. (2007). A general theory of artistic legitimation: How art worlds are like social
movements. Poetics 35(1), pp.47-65.
Bayton, M. (1998). Frock Rock. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Becker, H. (1982). Art Worlds. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Beebe, M. (1964). Ivory Towers and Sacred Founts - The Artist as Hero in Fiction from Goethe
to Joyce. New York, NY: New York University Press.
Bielby, W.T. (2004). Rock in a Hard Place: Grassroots Cultural Production in the Post-Elvis Era.
American Sociological Review 69(1), pp.1-13.
Bielby, D.D. and W.T. Bielby. (1996). Women and Men in Film: Gender Inequality Among
Writers in a Culture Industry. Gender & Society 10(3), pp.248-70.
Bourdieu, P. (1993). The Field of Cultural Production. New York, NY: Columbia University
Press.
Bowles, H.R., L. Babcock, and L.L. Lai. (2007). Social incentives for gender differences in the
propensity to initiate negotiations: Sometimes it does hurt to ask. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes 103(1), pp.84-103.
Britton, D. and L. Logan. (2008). Gendered Organizations: Progress and Prospects. Sociology
Compass 2(1), pp.107–21.
Brooks, G.S. and J.C. Daniluk. (1998). Creative labors: the lives and careers of women artists.
The career development quarterly 46(3), pp.246-61.
Caves, R.E. (2000). Creative Industries: Contracts Between Art and Commerce. Boston, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Childress, C. (2015). Regionalism and the Publishing Class: Conflicted Isomorphism and
Negotiated Identity in a Nested Field of American Publishing. Cultural Sociology,
Published online ahead of print 20 April 2015, doi 10.1177/1749975515580858.
Chong, P. (2013). Legitimate Judgment in Art, the Scientific World Reversed?: Critical Distance
in Evaluation. Social Studies of Science 43(2), pp.265-81.
Clawson, M.A. (1999). When Women Play the Bass:Instrument Specialization and Gender
Interpretation in Alternative Rock Music. Gender & Society 13(2), pp.193-210.
Cohen, S. (2013). Men making a scene: Rock music and the production of gender. In S.
Whiteley, ed. Sexing the Groove: Popular Music and Gender. New York, NY:
Routledge. pp.17-33.
23
Cooper, M. (2000). Being the “go-to guy”: Fatherhood, masculinity, and the organization of
work in Silicon Valley. Qualitative Sociology 23(4), pp.379-405.
Cowen, T. (1996). Why Women Succeed, and Fail, in the Arts. Journal of Cultural Economics
20(2), pp.93-113.
Czerniawski, A.M. (2015). Fashioning Fat: Inside Plus-size Modeling. New York, NY: New
York University Press.
Dobrow, S.R. (2012). Dynamics of calling: A longitudinal study of musicians. Journal of
Organizational Behavior 34(4), pp.431-52.
Donze, P.L. (2011). “Popular music, identity, and sexualization: latent class analysis of artist
types.” Poetics, 39: 44-63.
Eagly, A.H., M.G. Makhijani, and B.G. Klonsky. (1992). Gender and the Evaluation of Leaders:
A Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin 111(1), pp.3-22.
Ekelund, B.G. and M. Börjesson. (2002). The shape of the literary career: an analysis of
publishing trajectories. Poetics 30: 341-364.
Eyerman, R. (2006). Toward a Meaningful Sociology of the Arts . In R. Eyerman & L.
McCormick, eds. Myth, Meaning, and Performance: Toward a New Cultural Sociology
of the Arts. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers. pp.13-34.
Finnegan, R. (2007 [1989]). The hidden musicians: music-making in an English town.
Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.
Finney, H.C. (1993). Mediating Claims to Artistry: Social Stratification in a Local Visual Arts
Community. Sociological Forum 8(3), pp.403-31.
Florida, R. and S. Jackson. (2010). Sonic City: The Evolving Economic Geography of the Music
Industry. Journal of Planning Education and Research 29(3), pp.310-21.
Foster, P., S.P. Borgatti and C. Jones. (2011). Gatekeeper search and selection strategies:
Relational and network governance in a cultural market. Poetics 39(4), pp.247-65.
Fudge, J. and L.F. Vosko. (2001). Gender, Segmentation and the Standard Employment
Relationship in Canadian Labour Law, Legislation and Policy. Economic and Industrial
Democracy 22(2), pp.271-310.
Giffort, D.M. (2011). Show or Tell? Feminist Dilemmas and Implicit Feminism at Girls' Rock
Camp. Gender & Society 25(5), pp.569-88.
Goldin, C. and C. Rouse. (2000). Orchestrating Impartiality: The Impact of "Blind" Auditions on
Female Musicians. American Economic Review 90(4), pp. 715-741.
Groce, S.B. and M. Cooper. (1990). Just me and the boys?: Woman in local-level rock and roll.
Gender & Society 4(2), pp.220-29.
Harris, D. and P. Giuffre. (2015). Taking the Heat: Women Chefs and Gender Inequality in the
Professional Kitchen. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Hirsch, P. (1972). Processsing fads and fashions: An organization-set analysis of cultural
industry systems." American Journal of Sociology, 77(4), pp.639-59.
24
Huf, L. (1983). A portrait of the artist as a young woman: the writer as heroine in American
literature. London, UK: Burns & Oates.
Johnston, J. and S. Baumann. (2007). Democracy versus Distinction: A Study of
Omnivorousness in Gourmet Food Writing. American Journal of Sociology 113(1),
pp.165-204.
Kanter, R.M. (1977). Men and Women of the Corporation. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Kelly, E.L., S.K. Ammons, K. Chermack, and P. Moen. (2010). Gendered Challenge, Gendered
Response: Confronting the Ideal Worker Norm in a White Collar Workplace. Gender &
Society 24(3), pp.281-303.
Kosmala, K. (2007). The Identity Paradox? Reflections on Fluid Identity of Female Artist.
Culture and Organization 12(1), pp.37-53.
Lang, G.E. and K. Lang. (1988). Recognition and Renown: The Survival of Artistic Reputation.
American Journal of Sociology 94(1), pp.79-109.
Leonard, M. (2007). Gender in the Music Industry: Rock, Discourse, and Girl Power.
Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company.
Lincoln, A., and Allen M.P. (2004). “Double Jeopardy in Hollywood: Age and Gender in the
Careers of Film Actors, 1926-1999.” Sociological Forum, 19(4): 611-631.
MacNell, L., A. Driscoll, and A.N. Hunt. (2014). What’s in a Name: Exposing Gender Bias in
Student Ratings of Teaching. Innovative Higher Education, Published online ahead of
print, DOI 10.1007/s10755-014-9313-4.
Martin, K. (1998). Becoming a gendered body: Practices of preschools. American Sociological
Review 63(4), pp.494-511.
Mears, A. 2011. Pricing Beauty: The Making of a Fashion Model. Berkeley, CA, USA:
University of California Press
Menger, P.-M. (1999). Artistic Labour Markets and Careers. Annual Review of Sociology 25(1),
pp.541-74.
Midler, M.S. (1980). George Eliot's rebels: Portraits of the artist as a woman. Women's Studies:
An inter-disciplinary journal 7(3), pp.97-108.
Millar, B. (2008). Selective hearing: gender bias in the music preferences of young adults.
Psychology of Music 36(4), pp.429-45.
Miller, D. (2014). Symbolic Capital and Gender: Evidence from Two Cultural Fields. Cultural
Sociology 8(4), pp.462-82.
Nieva, V.F. and B.A. Gutek. (1980). Sex Effects on Evaluation. The Academy of Management
Review 5(2), pp.267-76.
Nochlin, L. (1989). The politics of vision: Essays on nineteenth-century art and society.
Westview Press.
Ocshe, R. (1990). Before the gates of excellence: the determinants of creative genuis. New York,
NY: Cambridge University Pres.
25
Parker, R. and G. Polock. (2013 [1981]). Old Mistresses: Women, Art and Ideology. New York,
NY: I.B. Tauris & Co, Ltd..
Pheterson, G.I., S.B. Kiesler, S.B. and P.A. Goldberg. (1971). Evaluation of the performance of
women as a function of their sex, achievement, and personal history. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 19(1), pp.114-18.
Piitro, J. (1991). Why are there so few? (creative women: Visual artists, mathematicians,
musicians). Roeper Review, 13(3), pp.142-47.
Ridgeway, C.L. (2001). Gender, Status and Leadership. Journal of Social Issues 57(4), pp.637-
55.
Ridgeway, C.L. (2011). Framed by Gender: How Gender Inequality Persists in the Modern
World. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Sargent, C. (2009). Playing, Shopping, and Working as Rock Musicians Masculinities in “De-
Skilled” and “Re-Skilled” Organizations. Gender & Society 23(5), pp.665-87.
Schmidt, B.E. (2015). Gendered Language in Teacher Reviews. [Online] Available at:
http://benschmidt.org/profGender/#%7B%22database%22%3A%22RMP%22%2C%22pl
otType%22%3A%22pointchart%22%2C%22method%22%3A%22return_json%22%2C
%22search_limits%22%3A%7B%22word%22%3A%5B%22genius%22%5D%2C%22de
partment__id%22%3A%7B%22%24lte%22%3A25%7D%7D%2C%22aest [Accessed
16th May 2015].
Steinberg, R. (1990). The Social Construction of Skill: Gender, Power, and Comparable Worth.
Work and Occupations 17(4), pp.449-82.
Stohs, J.H. (1992). "Career patterns and family status of women and men artists." The Career
Development Quarterly 40(3): 223-233.
Stokes, A. (2013). Fashioning Gender: A Case Study of the Fashion Industry. Hamilton, ON:
PhD Dissertation, McMaster University.
Stokes, A. (2015). The Glass Runway: How Gender and Sexuality Shape the Spotlight Among
Fashion Designers. Gender & Society 29 (2), pp.219-43.
Tams, E. (2002). Creating Divisions: Creativity, Entreprenurship, and Gendered Inequalities - a
Sheffield Case Study. City 6(3), pp.393-402.
Tuchman, G. and N.E. Fortin. (1984). Fame and Misfortune: Edging Women out of the Great
Literary Tradition. American Journal of Sociology 90(1), pp.72-96.
Vosko, L. 2000. Temporary Work: The gendered rise of a precarious employment relationships.
Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.
Wehr-Flowers, E. (2006). Differences between male and female students' confidence, anxiety,
and attitude toward learning jazz improvisation. Journal of Research in Music Education
54(4), pp.337-49.
Williams, C.L. (1992). The Glass Escalator: Hidden Advantages for Men in the "Female"
Professions. Social Problems 39(2), pp.253-67.
26