Lyrics: (not available)
The three aforementioned arguments for Mozart's membership to the canon for music may justify the inclusion of several other composers we often include in the canon, such as Bach, Tchaikovsky, and Vivaldi. These arguments certainly support those who are already considered worthy of the canon. However, if one were to rattle off famous composers, as I just did, there are other elements that unite them and exclude other parties. Primarily, I speak to the fact that the canon for music is almost entirely male. The question then ensues: is the canon primarily male because women do not typically meet the criteria for membership to the canon, or is the criteria itself established by and for men? To be clear, I am not about to begin an ultra-feminist rant about the dire oppression of women throughout history, those this may very well be true. I do find it important however to question why we accept certain truths, such as whom we consider great musicians. Understanding how we determine who a great musician is also says who is not a great musician. While not being a member of the canon in music does not necessarily make all other musicians poor ones, it does ask why some groups are consistently not present in the canon. This is the next topic of discussion to follow.
"Giusto Amor" was written by Louise Reichardt, a very unknown female composer of the classical era. In fact, she and Mozart were only about 20 years apart, both living in the late 1700s. A tangible display of her obscurity despite ability and time period similarities to Mozart is the difference between the two composers' wikipedia pages. There are a whopping 182 words said about Louise Reichardt compared to the multi-paged, 5000 word overview of Mozart. Louise came from a rather musical family, her grandfather, Franz Benda, having been the concert master in Frederick the Great's court. Louise grew up with music and had her visible musical proclivities somewhat encouraged, but not extensively so. In fact, her only publication—which was very rare for women at the time as it was—happened to be four of her pieces as part of her father's collection that he published. Louise Reichardt seemed to be an exception to the rule of not women publishing music as it was not appropriate for women. Even though Louise was published, it was only made possible by her father, and she is still almost entirely unknown. This once again raises the question: is there truly certainly elements to musical composition that women have not achieved like Mozart or Brahms, or are there are other underlying factors contributing to the lack of women in the canon?
Philosopher Linda Nochlin asks and then addresses this question in her article, "Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?"Nochlin's presents two possible answers to the previously stated question. Firstly one could argue that there have indeed been great women artists who have simply been neglected, such as our Louise Reichardt. Secondly one might take a "separate but equal" approach claiming that great female art is different in standards and activities and therefore not typically acknowledged in the canon, i.e., a male-based canon. Nochlin believes that both of these responses are erroneous because they emphasize the notion of artistry as an innate skill instead of emphasizing the rigorous process of developing artistic skills and techniques. Once one acknowledges this critical aspect to art, explanations for the lack of women in the canon become more about inequalities of opportunities than speaking about mere ability or potential to create. Historically speaking, women were simply not often encouraged to develop artistic proclivities. Even if some were permitted to "dabble," the extensive apprenticeship and education that young male artists received was inconceivable for women. Nochlin does not seem to dismiss that there is some artistic talent that cannot be taught; however, she urges that the training and education necessary for artists to become members of the canon be acknowledged. Through this acknowledgment one may see that seldom are women present in the canon due to a lack in fostering artistic potential and interest with education and training.
Mary Devereaux, philosopher and author of "Oppressive Texts," discusses possible remedies for the lack of women in the canon, one of which particularly aligns with Nochlin's call for a shift in emphasis from innate talent to opportunities to develop artistry. Before I describe this remedy, I will draw attention to several other remedies, the first of which is the "Add Women and Stir" method. As the name suggests, this remedy proposes that what is already canonized or housed in museums remain as such, but that more women be included. Nochlin does agree that adding women into the public view is desirable, but it should be noted that there truly are fewer "great" female artists. This reality, as aforementioned, is largely due to the male-biased structure of history that encouraged and developed artistic young men instead of artistic young women. A second remedy is to either eliminate the canon or create a new canon. Removing the canon would also remove the overemphasis, according to Nochlin, on innate abilities that then become glorified. Moreover, starting a new canon may not eradicate this overemphasis, but will likely broaden the strict standards of what is worthy of the canon. With broadening would come more inclusion of women that may not adhere to the "standards of greatness" but would still be incorporated for the very reason that such standards were not really attainable on the basis of little to no opportunities for artistic development. Both of these similar, though still different remedies are not ones that Nochlin and Devereaux can endorse because they are nearly impossible and still somewhat enforcing the inequalities and differences between male and female art, respectively. Devereaux's conclusion closest to what one might call a remedy is instead changing our approach to how we view art itself. Devereaux emphasizes the context, be it historical, gendered, cultural and so on in which art is based and to which art is connected. A revision of viewing art as not a separate unit but instead part of a rich and complex context lessens canonization and helps alleviate some inequality by acknowledging the inequality itself.
So, why have we not heard of Louise Reichardt and her piece "Giusto Amor"? Nochlin and Devereaux would say that Louise was not allowed the same level of education and encouragement in her musical endeavors as her male counterparts. Hopefully by hearing the beauty and skill involved in her music, she and other female composers may continue to be recognized, bearing in mind the contexts from which each composer comes, as Devereaux suggests we do.