Why Did Dorothy Mead Experience Less Success Than Her Male British Modern Contemporaries?
by Alice Mcleod-Bishop
Dorothy Mead was a loyal student to Bomberg and championed his work and methods even when the wider British art community was staunchly against Bomberg’s teaching methods and philosophy, leading to Mead being asked to leave the Slade before completing her studies there. It is difficult to know why the art-world failed to appreciate Bomberg’s works despite his students and friends being able to recognise his skills: perhaps they found his teaching style too unorthodox or were threatened by his approach and philosophy. Whatever the reasoning, the establishment was against Bomberg and the Borough Group as a result, which arguably hindered the flourishing of the group-members’ careers as galleries refused to exhibit their work.
According to Borough Group founding member Cliff Holden, some of those who were in close contact with Bomberg made a mockery of his practice, by recreating (arguably, cheapening) Bomberg’s stylistic affects. One of these individuals is world renowned artist Frank Auerbach, who was an avid student of Bomberg’s from 1947-1953 and the most successful of Bomberg’s students. Auerbach did not join the Borough Group or Bottega during their existence as it seems he intended to not be as closely associated with Bomberg and his followers. It is quite clear when examining Auerbach’s work how heavily he was influenced by Bomberg, especially when you compare Auerbach’s paintings with Mead’s, who was proud to be Bomberg’s student.
(left: Mead, Reclining Figure, 1954; right: Auerbach, E.O.W Nude, 1954)
(left: Mead, Self Portrait, 1960; right: Auerbach, Julia, 1992)
(left: Mead, Industrial Landscape, Evening, 1947; right, Auerbach, Building Site Earl’s Court Road: Winter (Replica), 1955)
Auerbach’s style does differ from Mead’s – for example he depicts less form and uses thicker or more paint – but the Bombergian influences in both their work is clear on examining some of Bomberg’s paintings in the Borough Road Gallery’s collection. So why did Mead find little success where Auerbach found fame and fortune? It is certain that Auerbach’s distancing from Bomberg and the groups associated to him allowed for his career to flourish since critics, galleries, buyers, and others were unbiased regarding his art since they generally held a strong dislike toward Bomberg. Those who were part of the Borough Group and the Bottega failed to break through because Bomberg’s methods and philosophy were misunderstood, explaining how Auerbach, who had similar stylistic techniques and subjects in his paintings compared to Mead, was so successful despite being taught by Bomberg.
It can also be inferred that Mead’s gender had a great deal to do with her career not finding the success it had the potential to. Female artists have had the odds stacked against them for as long as society itself has been patriarchal. Until recently, non-male artists were rarely commissioned to make work, and ratio of male to female artists in galleries always shows there are more male artists being exhibited, sold and critiqued. The men who were influenced by Bomberg and were closely aligned to him, such as Holden, still found more success than their female counterparts. And the men who were influenced by Bomberg and distanced themselves from his philosophy, such as Auerbach, found even greater success. Considering that Auerbach was three years younger than Mead, they were certainly contemporaries and so the comparison between their works is relevant, highlighting the distinct differences between their careers. If Mead had distanced herself from Bomberg and continued to study at the Slade, as Auerbach did, she might have been a considerably more well-known and successful artist; and yet, maybe her allegiance to Bomberg and her respect for his teachings made her the artist she became.