Genre: Opinion/Argumentation

Is this the best way to rebalance art history? After all, patriarchy is not the personal fault of, say, Robert Rauschenberg -- another of Seattle 's vanished dead white males. Rauschenberg is a highly original, compelling artist whose work inspires artists today -- male and female alike. One young artist who seems to me to work in his tradition is, for instance, Lucy Skaer . In fact, the stunt in Seattle is only for a few months: the big macho names will be back in town soon enough. But still. This is a slightly old-fashioned political art gesture, surely? Maybe not. The story of art is an iceberg of gender inequality, a daunting frozen mass of male power. Before the 20th century, the apprenticeships and academic training required to learn representational skills put chilling obstacles in the way of women, who were excluded from such institutions. In the 20th century, the ice started to melt -- but arguably this created more insidious and hypocritical forms of inequality. The relationship of Lee Krasner and Jackson Pollock is a case in point. Krasner was a talented painter who also happened to be better educated and more socially competent than Pollock. She ended up supporting him emotionally and nurturing him, as he struggled with alcoholism: her reward in art history is to be second best to his fame. These kinds of relationships stalk modern American art. Read biographies and it often seems women stuffed the floppy hamburgers, helped with the prints ... and were sidelined . Still, the Seattle method is clumsy. Krasner's art does not need special pleading -- it has an unmistakable power . Why not simply show her and Pollock side by side? Pollock's genius was real, if fragile: to sideline him is foolish. A museum that owns a Pollock and chooses not to display it is making a mistake. Bury excellence and you end up denying the power of art. That helps no artist.