Not that I haven’t read this article before – by many others. I think the best was done by Greg Allen at the Times. It’s kind of pathetic to read about singular painters when discussing this, like “They always have the Frida Kahlo up” etc. - as if any singular painter can transform 5% into 50.
How credit, attribution and influence were achieved has everything to do with it. Here’s an example of a couple of my favorite artists and how my own views began to change:
For years I thought Jean Arp was the superior artist to Sophie Taeuber Arp. Mind, he had double her lifetime and didn’t begin to get into the Venice Biennale and such until he was much older, but age was not the only advantage…
It’s only been the last few years that I saw how he got a lot of his ideas, subject matter and yes, even style, from her. The whole “like nature” schtick he got from her. And he knew it, he wrote about it. He was devastated when she died – he didn’t make any art for over five years - for more than one reason. She was not just his love; she was a pipeline.
I think you can put Sophie Taeuber Arp up there, no question, as a great artist but impossible to really gauge. She died young, but also lived in a time when the way she got to influence the history of art was rooted in how she influenced a male artist.