I love reading your letters and the responses, and always learn something from them. But, I was disappointed and a little surprised to read your response to Achola Rosario Odido. She is the only one who can decide who she is, and I didn't get the feeling she was unhappy with her looks or her personal style, just frustrated with the prejudice and oppression of others in her culture. But Robert, you are correct, it is your personal prejudice that makes you believe that an artist who is not "understated" in their personal style and, God forbid, "resorts to the likes of dreadlocks and tattoos," is, or could be...maybe?? somehow inferior...? I think you really missed the boat on this one, friend. Without individuality, there is no art. It wouldn't matter. No one would care. And, by the way...I am an artist in my 50s, a grandma, no tattoos or dreadlocks, and I want to say to Achola...Keep creating, keep hitting hard...the world needs you.

This is certainly not a protest from a "Western Artist" that happens to be female, declaring that I have a "rough enough time" in my own culture of making a go at an artistic career. I would not even begin to compare my experience to Achola's. Her bravery and determination are something for women in all cultures to aspire to, artist or not. I have been to Uganda and other areas in Africa and spent time living with a Kenyan university professor and her family. I have had only a taste at what their life is like trying to swim against the tide of adversity there. What surprises me most, Robert, is your shockingly shallow notion that artists who "resort to likes of dreadlocks and tattoos" are "stuck with inability" and resorting to "showmanship." I really enjoy your newsletter as a rule, but it almost sounds as if you are on vacation and have someone sitting in for you while you're gone! I have NEVER met an artist who, after trying to gain acclaim for his/her artistic ability, has “resorted to” running out to get dreadlocks and tattoos as a last ditch effort for notoriety. For starters, most of an artist's work is presented to the public by a mediator (gallery owner etc.) so if the artist were paraplegic, painting with a brush in her teeth, then the patron couldn’t be swayed to buy their work based on what the artist looked like. Get my drift? Absolutely NO disrespect meant there, merely illustrating a point. Taste in art varies as widely as the collective, “good” and “bad” artist’s works do. If a collector only buys work from women who have green spiked hair, does that make her/him any less of a collector? I would like to think that we are free to present ourselves the way we feel most comfortable. And rest assured that I will never be guilty of assuming Ms Odido or anyone else is “stuck with inability” based on their appearance. In fact, it is my experience that people who enjoy alternative fashion exude confidence, quite the opposite of someone failing and on their last resort to fulfill their dreams. Please don’t fuel negative stereotypes.

I am an artist and live in a very progressive and art centered town. A lot of good, well established and successful artists show here, and all have quite different personalities but it's the artwork that really stands for itself. Personally, I think the more gifted an artist is, the more understated the personality because of their introverted natures. I've also never seen an artist's gender be an issue and I often circle the galleries to keep up with the other artists' art and careers. What I have noticed time and time again is that the percentage of successful men artists is much higher than women. The quality of the art by men is also much better. I have to say this, as a woman artist myself, and after searching for other good women artists as role models, very rarely do I see successful women combining a successful art career and also acting as home maker or mother. It is usually when the children leave the nest, or the absence of children all together that a woman can concentrate fully on her artwork to aquire the skills needed to compete at a higher level and make a decent living (it's expensive raising a family). Take Georgia O'Keeffe, one of the country's first women to successfully compete at the same level as the men, she never had children nor did she even feel compelled to live with her husband once she discovered the West and moved to New Mexico. I have children and often feel frustration because I can't work on my painting as often as I want to. My father is also an artist who has reached a good level of success. Growing up, I remember how he'd spend many hours, day and night, locked away in his workshop while my mother, also an aspiring artist, was left to raise the kids. My mother never did reach the same level of success in the art world as my father.

I had totally forgotten about my being a "woman artist." It's interesting to look back and say, oh yes, there is this issue and that issue about being a female maker of art. I could think about that stuff but it would be a distraction. OK I'm going back into my studio now, it's time to focus on... what? Making art!

Good luck and good fortune to Achola on her artistic journey. The important thing whether you are male or female is to invest your energy into making your own artistic statement. It is after all a personal journey. Whatever your goals are, there are going to be hurdles to overcome whether you are male or female. What is being successful? It must be different for each of us. Could it be to walk out one morning into a beautiful landscape and have the freedom and gift to put that perfect moment onto canvas and walk home singing with happiness because the result of that entire day is a personal success (even if the painting is not sellable). Or could success be, that many people will sing our praises as good artists and part with their money to buy our best works of art. Let us just paint, write or do whatever we feel inspired to create and not let obstacles such as weather, poverty, outward appearances, day jobs, other commitments or indeed Gender prevent us from expressing our creativity.

Usually....your comments, Robert, are fair, provocative, and encouraging. I pass them along to artist colleagues and I urge them to sign up for your newsletter because of your strong stand on staying true to artistic vision, understanding the history of art, and so forth. Now...I'm a bit concerned. As a woman of color, I found your comment equating dreadlocks and tattos with mediocrity puzzling and scary. It was a further reminder that racism, however, unintended, is alive and well here in the U.S., not just in so-called developing countries. I don't question your intentions...but I hope that you are aware of the impact of such a comment on dreadlocked, tattooed serious artists.

I live in what has become, in the past few years, a very art centered area. It's interesting to me that the artists who aspire to become "well known" do indeed adopt a persona. Either clothing or hair style, or something to "stand out" in the crowd. I've also noticed over the years that in a competition,the female judges will gravitate toward the male artist. I don't know if having a rather generic name has saved me since I've won a fair amount of awards, but it was so evident in recent show in which I had several entries, (no sour grapes, I won an award) to see that in all the categories, if there was a male artist entered, he automaticaly won an award regardless of the quality of work. When it comes to competing, at least in art, women apparently do not "stick together".

In Canada, women painters often had to sign their paintings, "By a Lady" for fear of embarrassing their husbands. If you can find it, read the book by that name subtitled "Celebrating Three Centuries of Art by Canadian Women," written by Maria Tippett, long out of print (Penguin 1993). It is an eye opener --but even here, iconic contemporary women artists such as Doris McCarthy, Pat Fairhead, Anne Meredith Barry, are omitted. I'm fortunate in that I've never knowingly met discrimination as a woman artist -- possibly because I wouldn't recognize it if it happened.

I've breathed the air on this earth for 2 days past 51 years - and this is the first time that I have ever heard that a dislike of dreads and tats is "racist". I don't particularly care for either myself - does that make me racist? - No, it just shows that I have a differing opinion. Why? I guess in some part, I have never met anyone with both that would have anything to do with someone like me, but more due to my heritage and upbringing. They are not in my heritage and I feel no compulsion to buck tradition. No need to – too much effort. What shapes my life and my life's journey is something much deeper than the way I look or whether I express my individuality, or whether I "rebel" against "society". With that being said, living in America, you thankfully have the right (fought over and won by the blood of our ancestors and instituted by our founding fathers) to express yourself freely (but hopefully with some public restraint out of respect for the children and those who don't want "indecency" in their lives) and I fully support those rights (granted, by the way, by persons of largely oppressive, conservative viewpoints)! Not trying to put words into Robert’s mouth, but what he was probably trying to gently and kindly say was that when you buck status quo, tradition, heritage, “the norm”, etc…expect people to have a different opinion. And opinions are all they are. One or the other might be right, but neither is necessarily right or wrong. Why, because they are opinions. Like emotions, they change. Funny thing about opinions, they never see both sides of the line. When a rebel bucks “the norm” and is not accepted, “the norm” is deemed intolerant or any other of a string of largely derogatory and four-lettered words. However, when the rebel doesn’t accept “the norm” he/she doesn’t consider themselves intolerant, bigoted, racist, etc…..I’m much more of a rebel than you would expect of me, I just don’t expect others to necessarily accept my opinions, the way I act, or the way I live. I wouldn't be upset about not being able to enter an acrylic in a transparent watercolor show/contest, I'd just go find a show/contest that accepted acrylics! Simple! Gender discrimination in art – until it was brought up here, I did not realize it existed. I thought it had more to do about how one markets or is marketed! I did not think artistic talent had much to do with success. Talk to people in the music business for their opinions on that! Do I like Warhol’s art, Rothko’s, Pollock’s, Kinkade’s (well a little) or a long list of others (including some of my art instructors) – no. But I do respect them if even just for knowing how to fool – er – persuade others into thinking what they produce is desirable, important and something to sink thousands and possibly millions of their hard-earned money on. Talk about “discrimination”. When was the last time you saw an overweight, gray-haired, past middle-age, WASP, watercolorist in the realist tradition highlighted in any major art magazine, publication, etc…I must confess, there may be, I don’t keep up with any major art magazines, publications, etc…I’m a rebel!

Respect or no respect. Money or no money. Success or no success. Recognition or no recognition. I would not trade my being female with any man in the world. For that matter, I would not want to be any other human in the world. I would only want to be myself---but younger! Not too young though---just replay the ages of 35 to 45 over and over and over.

Before becoming and while becoming an artist I was a civil rights lawyer working on a daily basis to take on race, sex and age discrimination. I like to try to put that work out of my mind and concentrate on painting. I feel that someone else needs to carry on the struggle for justice, because I just got tired of it. However, the subject keeps coming up. I think there is a bit of discrimination in the market against us older artists who have delayed in starting our careers, which works doubly against women who are now forced to raise children at the same time as having paying jobs in order to support their families. As with other forms of discrimination, I tend to look at what we used to call "the power structure" to see how and why it supports and encourages various forms of discrimination. Who is gaining or holding power and wealth by supporting discriminatory attitudes and actions? For instance, the immigration policy or non-policy in the United States is basically to the advantage of the financial and certain business leaders who, despite what they or their representatives in Congress may say, benefit hugely from keeping the labor market stocked with underprivileged and very poor workers. I believe that the art business and many of the ideas, attitudes and prejudices which float around in it is based on a long history of using the magic of art to promote power and financial interests. For centuries in western culture the church had a monopoly on art. which it has used to make people believe that it was connected to a God or Gods who could not only make life better for its followers, but could doom people to everlasting torture and pain for those who might not believe. Art was used to rescue the stale mythology of religions, because "a picture is worth a thousand words." I would say a billion at least. Religion allied with wealth and military success still rules most of the world for the primary benefit of a relatively small group of wealthy and powerful people and a larger but still relatively small group of us hangers on. This is evident in the marketing of art. Millions of dollars are spent on a few hyped up masterpieces, and the path to success is loaded with galleries, dealers, critics all trying to make a living off the wealthy purchasers. Have you ever gone into a gallery say in New York or Santa Fe and seen how the clerks fawn and manipulate the customers? It is a disgusting sight and the worst of it I am sure goes on in unobservable places. The average person, who does have a kind of repressed interest in art is taught not to respect her or his own judgment when it comes to buying art work. My own personal problem with marketing art is that I don't usually like even the feeling of being in a gallery, and I certainly don't like the idea of cultivating and buttering up the same group of people that I used to sue in court. I think the problem is larger, and goes to the whole marketing system and the idea of value that has been created for the benefit of keeping the wealthy and powerful in charge of what art is worth buying or owning. Fortunately, I also think that it won't require a revolution to fix this, but it will require somehow educating the consumer to trust in his or her own judgment. I think teaching more of our children to be able to participate by regularly making some art of their own would be a great help.

While I agree with many of the comments that are being submitted here, I do not agree that it is always discrimination against women as such. I agree with Sam Liberman that it is a kind of power-struggle, which is a normal procedure in our life-cycle. I look on it as a challenge to either overcome or learn to ignore, because it is taking away my energy which I need in order to perform in my studio. This energy combined with the concentration that is necessary to create good works, is what we all should be looking at to help in our painting-career. As Robert pointed out in one of his letters, there is no quick way to success; it takes a lot of hard work to become a good painter, even with talent. But the 'good work' will in the end give you recognition.

I, too, was thrilled by the inspirational words of Emily Carr -- which ultimately led to a far greater appreciation of her artwork. So glad we share that personal experience.

Vancouver's Gallery Jones represents 33 artists, only 7 of whom are female. You do the math.

Today,before I read your letter, I was emailed a Utube of Paul Potts competing in England. His method of creativity is his beautiful voice. Working in a simple setting and completely unknown, his art remained hidden. Fortunately for us, he entered a contest and has won! I felt the awe in your voice as you spoke of Emily Carr and her majestic art. So many great talents were not recognised until after their lives had ended. Having seen this man triumph, and reading your letter, has spurred me to try that "damn" rosebud one more time. Thanks so very much

You must think me balmy! My response was regarding your letter about Emily Carr! Meanwhile, back at the palette....

Way back when Inspectors visited rural schools to evaluate the teachers and student progress; I have two of my best pieces of art taken by the Inspector for 'exhibition' ??. He also made me sign the art with an initial 'so they won't know you are girl or boy'. I was 12 at the time. Never saw the painting again. To this day I sign my art with an initial and it has made a difference on many occassions whether the art is accepted at a gallery or not. This difference shows up at juried shows too. Things have changed very little in the last many decades.

I was relieved when Tracey mentioned those critics who did not like Mr. Warhol's 'art'. His 'success' in no way signifies that he was a 'good' artist. His fame seems to have very much been due to the absurdity and unlikelihood of his fame! He was as a conversation piece, and I gather he didn't mind, enjoying his 15 minutes. He was famous for being famous. I once saw a drawing of his in an early '50s medical text... in a psychiatric ward. The book had to stay, but I got out!

If you lookup to the 'glass ceiling' mentioned by Sharon Cory, you will see the dirty souls of big feet. How could a woman, for example, really know if she was beneath that ceiling 'just for being a woman' or if she was beneath that glass ceiling because she wouldn't 'play ball' with the big boys? There are lots of us, men and women, who will never trod the up-side of that 'glass ceiling'. Don't worry about it, though. They don't admit the need for toilets there, and have none whatsoever!

shame on you robert! when you say essentially that painting tattooed, dreadlocked people is by artists with little talent; you are really descriminating! do you have alot of info to back up those statements, or is it a personal problem you have with the tattooed? i would suggest a cruise on the net. there are many fine artists out there creating great work that contains tattooed folks! michelle torrez is one; in fact, her portrait of a girl who happens to be tattooed was well done enough to grace the cover of frontier airlines magazine for the month! the name of the piece is resoviour ((excuse my spelling). i was very disappointed with your letter. i thought you were above that sort of thinking. tammi

Re: Danielle's letter above, about the Gallery with lopsided gender numbers. Surely you observed the kinds of things they put into that gallery? That's the kind of place I stay in for a while, so as to not reveal my humiliation and embarassment- that I was really so stupid as to have ever walked in the door! The relative non-attendance of women in there should not bother women in the least. (There are about two artists whose work I do admire, in there: 2)

This is true that discrimination exists, even in western society. Though women enjoy equal rights in the society, how many have actually reached the top? For example, the US has never had a woman president. Whereas the countries and cultures who are otherwise conservative have seen women at the top. For example the first woman prime minister was in Bangladesh. Any comments on this anamoly?

I have to admit I am pretty shocked about your comments. I, too, think that education is important...We should educate against illiteracy; educate against spiritual illiteracy...which is the critical crisis we are at in the world today. Belief systems that separate, divide and conquer. We are not separate from anything. We are all connected. Humanity is missing the mark in its attempts to create a world of peace and harmony and happiness...and we're missing the mark to experience Oneness with each other. I would repond to her by saying your message is your life, lived. Your message is your self divinely expressed. Allow your Self to be expressed in your own unique world so that the rest of us can know you held nothing back; that you didn't fear failure, and you saved nothing for later. Don't hide your light under the bushel, but let it so shine that we all can see the wonder of you and therefore know the wonder of ourselves.....for there are many that might see their own possibility in the reality of you. Go out and be a model for your world. Be the hope of your community and the hope of humanity. For those that wait for conditions to be perfect are continually waiting for someone else to take the steps. Come on now...let's raise our consciousness and awareness and take a deeper look at belief systems that have hardened into place. Sharon Reed

Now, I'm confused. I thought that Achola was saying that she herself was tattooed and wore dreadlocks and that her persona, while expressing her own uniqueness and style, was not being received well by galleries and her paintings were not being shown as a result. If this is the case I think that Robert was right in saying that if the culture in which you live and have to make a living does not accept your flamboyant style it might we wise to tone down your own individuality so as to not deflect interest from the paintings that you are attempting to sell. This does not however mean that you should stop trying to change, in whatever way you can, the discrimination which is inherent in the culture's reaction to you.

Good art needs no promotion or excuses. It exists no matter who made it. Art in a commercial market is another story. Why not take away all the signatures and let it run free to enrich the world.

I was first acquainted with Emily Carr in "The Forest Lover." Are there other books about and/or by her that you could recommend?

Whatever happened to making a decision and living with the consequences? One must decide what is important to them in life; i.e. supposedly showing your individuality by having tats or having success in certain markets. If you decide that tats are more important, then why the dismay when you fail in that market? Given the circumstances, the logical and “right” conclusion was realized! Why does one feel compelled to have to change the opinions of a bunch of people in order to justify their decision? And if you take a look at what is quite often the definition of “discrimination” nowadays, that rates right up there! Tammi, if you read carefully, Robert did not say all tattooed and dreadlocked artists. Also, just because you are disappointed and disagree with someone’s statements does not mean that there is not a lot of truth in what they said. Sujata – if you ask a lot of the voters there are actually, a vast number of reasons, that most people would not vote for a woman for president and most have little to do with “discrimination”. And no this does not come from a decades-long, exhaustive study of thousands of people’s opinions – but from observations of working campaigns and their studies. I have heard it said that a woman has to be twice as good as a man to “make it”. Unfortunately, there are times (and unfortunately it has been every time that I have had a female superior in my career), the woman is as talented and knowledge as any man, but the only thing she is twice as good at is being rude and mean. In no way am I saying that every woman with success in the business world is that way – but it should be a concern of every woman aspiring for the top. Victoria, Asta – 3 thumbs up Dave – 3 thumbs up and one “been there, done that”. Jeanne – instead of 35-45, make it 25-35! I want a “do over” for that decade. LOL