This page is referenced by:

• 1 2020-10-14T21:50:50+00:00 Levina Teerlinc : Miniature Portrait of Elizabeth I as a Princess 70 by Natalie Kim image_header 2020-10-19T19:14:47+00:00
  
  
               Levina Teerlinc’s Miniature Portrait of Elizabeth I as a Princess is a miniature painting dated 1550. Though there are some uncertainties as to who the subject in Teerlinc’s artwork is, the artwork reflects the artists in multitudes.
  
                Beginning with the historical background, it was commonly seen for successful female artists to have male artist associations, and this was certainly Flemish Miniaturist Levina Teerlinc’s scenario as well. Her father, Simon Bening was a renowned Flemish Illuminator, and her grandfather, Alexander Bening, was also similarly a Flemish Illuminator. As the oldest of five daughters, Teerlinc took up the responsibilities of carrying on the family business. Having this strong family lineage and appreciation for the arts, allowed Teerlinc direct access to obtaining appropriate levels of training to professionally succeed in her career. Specifically, influenced by her family’s root in manuscript illuminations, the skills helped Teerlinc to focus on detail-oriented, smaller sizes of artworks.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      
                A miniaturist is an artist who specialized in creating small scenes and portraits of people. When Teerlinc was invited to the court to become the royal miniaturist, the subject matters of her painting became mainly live figures and portraits. This commissioned work evidently provides a few weaknesses of Teerlinc as an artist, specifically as a female artist. As most of her work is shown without much of the body revealed, the disproportion of the shoulders, arms, and facial features expose Teerlinc’s lack of figure studies. Nochlin explains in Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists? that within deep roots of historical patriarchy, women were not given access to figure studies. Instead, subjects such as landscapes and still lives are much in a female’s focus. In fact, in the painting, there is a greater depth in the details of hair and jewelry rather than the subject’s face and the figure itself. Outside of this painting, in particular, this is commonly shown throughout Teerlinc’s works. Furthermore, the expression on the female subject is quite stiff. From the gaze and the stiffly postured subject, there almost is an objectifying view of the lady. The view which senses a lack of life within the body.
  
  
  
  
  
  
                During the time in Europe, the practice of miniature paintings was popular in royal court settings. The core essence of miniature paintings served as a portable gift from the monarchs as a statement of favor and loyalty. The intimate and personal purpose that this painting was to evoke is not fully grasped and felt. First and foremost, the gaze of the lady is facing away from the frontal view of the artist. Most of Teerlinc’s work portrays female subjects in this manner. The gaze and the impersonal disconnection holds no form of narration or self-expression. In a sense, there is an idea that this painting was created to be received and seen by a male figure. Behind the commissioning work resembles much of Teerlinc’s identity as a female artist.  Though her subject matters are of great value and of high significance, there is a disconnection between Teerlinc as an artist and her relationship with her works.
  
                The disconnection between the art and the artist can also be a result of objectification in not just the artworks but in herself as a female artist. At the time of the renaissance when females were given a bit more freedom to participate and engage in certain activities, there was still a distinctive flaw in the system of art credibility. Though as an artist who was paid more than her male predecessor, Teerlinc’s female embodiment takes away much of her own identity as an individual. A crucial factor that we find missing in this work of art, alongside all of Teerlinc’s works, is her signature. A signature is easily associated with credibility but beyond that is identity. Though Teerlinc had achieved remarkably a great amount of social and artistic recognition, the name Levina Teerlinc is still, today, detached from history. 
  
                The absence of female artists’ names was certainly a common trait that was demonstrated even before the renaissance. 

  “A master’s signature on a work of art meant that the work met the standards”.

  
  For an artist to be considered “meeting the standard” of society, that artist must identify as male. Therefore, instead of the name Levina Teerlinc, the name that appeared in the court account book was “King’s Paintrex”. The standard of gender by which outweighed the standard of artistry and skill was Teerlinc’s culture and the influence behind the creation of her impersonal works of art. 
  
                The pattern of cold and dark color tones, including black hues, deep blue, and dull-toned gold deviate from Teerlinc's original style of vibrant manuscript illuminations. The great emphasis and focused details on the clothing wear and jewelry can also exemplify another patriarchal stylistic appropriation. Teerlinc may have seen more value in identifying the nobility or the figure rather than the beauty of the female body. During her career, Teerlinc is associated with powerful female figures, including the lady in the painting. Yet, she chooses to focus her attention on toning down the glamor and extravagance.
  
                The patriarchal definition of the ideal woman during the Renaissance is a modest gentlewoman rather than an artisan. The painting incorporates the use of dull hues The woman is not portrayed as fierce or daring, neither vibrant nor lively. She is a figure that is stiff as an object. Teerlinc clearly portrays the women in an objectifying manner. The authoritarian figures of males in the past and in the present, have and are defining the beauty of women. If not themselves, through the influence of embedding false standards within the world. Teerlinc, as one. Though there is elegance in the work, the overall tone and composition of her consistent styling portray a clear absence of emotional connection which can observantly conclude the lack of value within herself and her subjects.
  
  
  
                When connecting each piece together, there is a thematic insincerity and lack of beautification found in the females, which emphasizes many qualities that devalue the female figure. Levina Teerlinc was a Flemish Renaissance miniaturist who was hired by King Henry VIII to serve as a painter in the English Court. Though she was deemed as a trained artist, her painting shows disproportion, a lack of emotion, and a considerably great amount of disconnection. Though she was shown attention and recognition for her role as an artist, there was not a single credit line of identification for appreciation. As Teerlinc entered the realm of prestige and high positions of the court, the artworks she’s created began to represent a deeper insight into who she is, which then reflected back onto her artworks. Instead of focusing on what is shown on Teerlinc’s artwork, the absence of certain elements provide a stronger claim of who Teerlinc is as an artist and as a female. 
  
                Outside of gender forms, the deeper roots and perspectives that take account of Teerlinc’s weak qualities in her artworks are often overlooked. Possibly projecting the reason why many great women artists are often dismissed. It’s the matter of things that are evidently unapparent in this work of art that truly reveals the influence of a patriarchal society on female artists including Levina Teerlinc.