he, she, it …

Women and the problems of gender in the history of graphic design

— Introduction to the short biographies

JULIA MEER

It becomes evident from the unabating political and scholarly discussions on the
topics of gender and equal opportunity how complex, wide-ranging and deeply
rooted the differences between the sexes are, as well as their causes. This publica-
tion is a part of this discussion, confronting a seemingly simple task, namely the
compilation of short biographies, from a multifariously problematic standpoint. A
comprehensive listing and review of the female graphic designers who were active
between 1890 and the present day is still missing in the scholarly literature, thus
presenting an unexplored topic of research, yet the problems posed by this under-
taking became apparent during the nascent stages of the project. It is the aim of
this introductory essay to mitigate — or at least define — some of these problems.

PROBLEM NO. 1 — THE FORGOTTEN ONES

The multitude of the listed biographies initially obscures the gaps in them. Despite
months of research, some designers — such as Carolyn Davidson, who created the
Nike ‘swoosh’, or Sonya Dyakova, art director at Phaidon publishers — were not ‘dis-
covered’ until after the editorial deadline. Overall, the fact that more women de-
signers have yet to be discovered is positive, since it shows that a very large number
of women have not only been active as designers, but have also achieved success
and are regarded as important figures in the field. Two fundamental problems of
our research project already become apparent here: first, it was impossible for us to
account for all women designers; and second, our selection was strongly deter-
mined by the material that was available to us. Our work was especially limited by
language barriers and logistical constraints: we were primarily able to examine Ger-
man and English source materials, albeit only those that were ‘mobile’. Due to time
and budget restrictions, we were unable to evaluate archives and most foreign peri-
383
odicals. This constraint was especially problematic in view of the fact that this pub- 1 The deinition of this term,
which has become established
lication approaches design history with the explicit question: why were so many in the USA and also among the
women ‘forgotten’? Yet while we attempt to correct some of these omissions, we lay public, is congruent with the
meaning of ‘typography’:
simultaneously reinforce others. In addition to these more or less unavoidable lim- ‘A graphic designer is a
professional within the graphic
itations, others were intentionally added: contrary to our early expectations, from design and graphic arts industry
1890 onwards a large number of women were active in the field of commercial who assembles together
images, typography or motion
graphics, making it necessary to limit the scope of the short biographies. The ini- graphics to create a piece of
design. A graphic designer
tial concern that we would find only few female designers was supplanted by a creates the graphics primarily
much more complex question: upon what criteria should our selection be based? for published, printed or
electronic media, such as
brochures (sometimes) and
advertising. […] A core
responsibility of the designer’s
P R O B L E M N O . 2 — W H AT I S ‘ G R A P H I C D E S I G N ’ ? job is to present information
in a way that is both accessible
and memorable.’ http://en.
wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphic_
The title of this book is Women in Graphic Design. The subject of our research appears designer (11.11.2011)
to be clearly delineated by this — but what exactly is ‘graphic design’? While the 2 The terminology in English
is more clearly deined: ‘type
English term refers quite specifically to the group of women that we intended to design’ refers to the design
of typefaces and fonts,
introduce in this publication,1 it was difficult to find a German equivalent. In con- ‘typography’ refers to the
trast to the English-speaking world, there is no consistent occupational title in Ger- selection and placement of
text on a page, and ‘graphic
man. Those who were active as ‘poster artists’, ‘book artists’ and ‘script artists’ were design’ refers to the two-
dimensional arrangement
intermittently referred to as ‘applied graphic artists’ and later subsumed under the of text, images and graphic
title Grafik-Designer, and today the term Kommunikationsdesigner is widely used. The elements.

latter, however, also encompasses the extraneous areas of illustration, photogra-

phy, film, et cetera. The German term that corresponds most closely with the Amer-
ican-defined label of ‘graphic design’ is Typografie, for this word is used by scholars
and professionals (in German-speaking regions) in reference to the arrangement of
text, images and graphic elements within a two-dimensional space — namely the
subject of this book. However, we found that this created confusion among people
outside of the field, since they understood Typografie as referring exclusively to the
design of typefaces.2 For this reason, we finally chose the analogous subtitle Frauen
und Grafik-Design, despite the derogatory connotations that are sometimes associ-
ated with this outdated occupational description in German.
The nebulousness of the border between ‘photographer’ and ‘graphic designer’ is
illustrated by the fact that grete stern (p. 562, fig. p. 436 and p. 438) was in-
cluded, while Marianne Brandt was not, although she also created several typo-
graphic works. However, Marianne Brandt did not regard herself as a commercial
graphic artist, while Grete Stern worked for many years in this field and was also
represented in the relevant trade journals. It is equally difficult to determine the
point at which a designer becomes an ‘illustrator’, especially around the turn of the
twentieth century, when — based on the idea of the Gesamtkunstwerk — this dif-
ferentiation was intentionally neglected and designers often produced not only
commercial graphics, but also textiles, ceramics, metalworks and even furniture
and architecture. To emphasise the fluidity of these boundaries, several short biog-
raphies of women were included whose work is representative of the areas that have
384
3 This process is particularly generally been omitted from this publication, for example, book binding, exhibi-
well documented in connection
with the critical reception of the tion design, kinetic or environmental design. The increasing convergence of art
Bauhaus, for example: Andreas and design is also addressed in the biographies of contemporary designers.
Haus (Ed.): Bauhaus-Ideen
1919–1994. Berlin 1994; Philipp Yet even after limiting the selection to women who were active in the area of ty-
Oswalt (Ed.): Bauhaus Streit –
1919–2009. Ostildern-Ruit pography, the remaining number still exceeded the planned scope of this book.
2009; supplemented by the Consequently, we had to establish additional qualifying criteria. Our first impulse
research of Patrick Rössler, who
examines how the Bauhaus was to choose only the ‘good’ designers.
inluenced and manipulated its
public and critical perception:
Patrick Rössler (Ed.): Bauhaus
Kommunikation. Berlin 2009.
P R O B L E M N O . 3 — W H AT I S ‘ G O O D ’ ?

The stipulation that only ‘good’ designers should be included would inevitably re-
sult in an evaluation that was at least partially subjective. Furthermore, judgements
on the ‘quality’ of a design are shaped by prevailing opinions in society and within
the design scene. This is illustrated, for example, by the ongoing discussion about
what ‘good’ — i.e., historically relevant — design is: history is constantly reas-
sessed, supplemented and repudiated. The belief in an ‘objective’ history has yield-
ed to the acknowledgement of the subjectivity of historiography as written history.3
In the context of our project, the criticism of Modernism that was put forward by
feminist scholars offers the most striking example of the malleability of the term
‘good’: in the 1970s, designers such as sheila levrant de bretteville (p. 414,
text p. 310 ff., interview p. 236 ff.) demanded that attention be given to ‘fe-
male’ aspects of design. Specifically, the clarity, unambiguity and objectivity of
modernist, ‘male-oriented’ design should be balanced by a multilayered and inter-
pretable design aesthetic that more clearly reflects the complexity of reality and
communication processes. The great degree to which these demands resemble the
ones placed on society as a whole is illustrated, for example, in april greiman’s
(p. 458, fig. p. 61 and p. 508) assertion that dualities are not opposites, but inde-
pendent possibilities in a common field, which co-exist with equal status and each
bring specific qualities to design and — here the transferral — to life. In view of the
semantic shift that can be observed in design history, the word ‘good’ has neither a
distinct and unequivocal meaning nor an established visual representation. While
it is possible to identify ‘good modern’, ‘good postmodern’ or ‘good whatever’ de-
sign, the use of ‘good’ as a single benchmark is nonetheless problematic.
If quality alone is an insufficient criterion, could it be amended by assessing the
productivity of the designer and the amount of work by her that has been pub-
lished? After all, the visible quantity of work is an indication of success.

P R O B L E M N O . 4 — W H AT I S ‘ A L O T ’ ?

The requirement that, as a rule, several works by a designer should be known in

order for her to be included in this publication will not seem surprising. It was our
385
intention to profile women who had extensive and in-depth experience in the de- 4 Cf. Allan Haley: Typographic
Milestones. Hoboken 1992.
sign of commercial graphics — just a few student pieces or ‘random’ graphic works 5 One of the frequently cited
were not sufficient for inclusion. However, this criterion also proved to be problem- reasons for this was the
assertion that women took jobs
atic, because it was not always possible to determine from the literature whether a away from men — a complaint
that was common, for example,
product designer, for example, was equally active in the field of graphic design. Bi- during the recession of the
ographies were frequently considered but then ultimately excluded because the de- 1920s. In the 1950s, on the other
hand, many people wanted to
signers appeared to have worked only temporarily with graphics before devoting avoid the impression that a man
could not earn enough to
themselves to the fine arts. Yet it is possible that this impression results from hier- support his family.
archical classifications in the historical reception of art — works of fine art were 6 The fact that networks
facilitate career advancement
often considered superior to applied artworks, and therefore more deserving of is evident in the biographies of
individual women. Jane Atché
scholarly attention, with the consequence that the latter disappeared from view. (p. 400), for example, had the
One can therefore speak of a ‘double discrimination’ against graphics by women: opportunity to exhibit together
with Alfons Mucha, thanks to
first, because they are works of applied art, and second, because they were created their close relationship. The
fact that her works appeared
by women. next to those of Mucha and
‘Quantity’ cannot simply be equated with ‘success’, for in the case of female de- other well-known poster de-
signers added to the aware-
signers, in particular, social and personal conditions must be considered: the life ness and appreciation of Jane
Atché among her contem-
and work situations of women were (and still are) often determined by their role as poraries and also contributed
mothers, which together with household tasks limits the amount of time they can to the ‘rediscovery’ of her de-
signs, since they were like-
devote to professional work. As a result, many women have produced a comparably wise regarded as important
and worthy of further research.
small œuvre, with the consequence that they were judged to be ‘insignificant’. In Instructors also frequently
addition, good design is not exclusively based on talent, but also requires a great assisted their students in
acquiring their earliest com-
amount of practice and experience. In their efforts to acquire both, women have missions, and having an
elevated social position was
typically faced adverse circumstances due to a lack of time and opportunities.4 Still an additional advantage —
prevalent and widespread is the accusation that women have not embraced the especially among the early
female book artists.
available opportunities. But is it legitimate to hold them solely responsible for this 7 See, among others, the
short biography of Eva Aschoff,
‘timidity’? Is it simply a matter of women becoming more ‘aggressive’ and adapting p.300, in this book.
to the common patterns of behaviour and communication in business — an opin-
ion that is often voiced in contemporary society? There is already debate over this
issue in reference to the present; with regard to the past, its implementation was
impeded by the prevailing image of women.
Until just a few decades ago, it was considered inappropriate for a woman to
pursue a career, especially if she was married.5 Those women who did were inevita-
bly exceptions, which often made them apprehensive about projecting the public
image of a creative, self-assured working woman. This apprehension was reinforced
by the views of ‘femininity’ that were part of the standard upbringing. But it had a
negative influence on the establishment of career-building networks, since net-
works are typically forged by activity and a confident demeanour.6 In spite of to-
day’s less clearly defined gender roles, we can still observe that many women (as the
interviews in this book attest, for example cf. p. 225 ff.) do not like to speak in
public and often hesitate to present their work, since they think that it is ‘not good
enough yet’.7 In the past, especially, the expectations that were applied to women
often caused them to retreat to the private sphere or charity work, as Susanne Ep-
pinger Curdes and others did. In reference to her many years of volunteer work for
386
8 Barbara Stempel / Susanne
Eppinger Curdes (Eds.): Rück-
blicke. Die Abteilung Visuelle
Kommunikation an der HfG
Ulm 1953–1968. Stuttgart 2010,
p. 106.
9 Cf. Cheryl Buckley: Made in
Patriarchy: Toward a Feminist
Analysis of Women and Design.
In: Design Issues, No. 2/3, 1986,
pp. 3–14; or Pat Kirkham (Ed.):
Women Designers in the USA,
1900–2000. New York 2000.
10 Ibid.
11 See, among others, Betty
S. Smith: Sarah Wyman Whit-
man. In: Harvard Magazine,
No. 1, 2008; also Gebrauchsgra-
phik, Vol. 5, No. 5, 1928,
pp. 50–56, here p. 50; and the
documentary presentation of
student competition entries in
the journal Gebrauchsgraphik
during the 1960s.
12 Gebrauchsgraphik, Vol. 5,
No. 5, 1928, pp. 50–56, here
p. 50.
13 See Heinrich Jost: Über den
Nachwuchs und die Ausbildung
des Gebrauchsgraphikers. In:
BDG-Blätter, Vol. 4, No. 10, 1928,
pp. 15–19.
14 Ibid., p. 17.
15 Cf. Richard Hollis: Schweizer
Graik – Die Entwicklung eines
internationalen Stils 1920–1965.
Basel/Boston/Berlin 2006,
p. 220. A comparison is pro-
vided by a list of women who
were active in 1936, amounting
to 10 %. Cf. Fachgruppe
Gebrauchsgraphiker in der
Reichskammer der bildenden
Künste (Ed.): Deutsche
Werbegraphik 1936. Exh. cat.,
Berlin 1936.
Today more women are active
in the workforce, yet their
presence in professional
associations still remains
comparatively small. See
the introduction to this book
on p. 29 ff.
387
social causes, Eppinger Curdes remarked: ‘With the same amount of effort I could
also have established a viable career.’ 8 As an awareness of such patterns has grown,
the call has arisen for a different kind of historiography. Many of the scholars who
are familiar with theories on gender and equal opportunity advocate that special
attention be given to the artistic value of works that were conceived for private rath-
er than public use (this topic is discussed in the essay by martha
scotford on p. 340 ff.).9
In addition to the role expectations imposed by society, the career development
of women is further complicated by the fact that they still typically bear the pri-
mary responsibility for raising children. The biography of a female graduate of the
Hochschule für Gestaltung Ulm can be cited as an example for the difficulties associ-
ated with re-entering the labour market: when her son was born in 1965 and her
husband was occupied by a demanding career, she gave up her job — ‘little realiz-
ing that this would be the end of regular employment for me’, as she later reflected.10
Like many other women who exhibited great potential during their design studies,
she was unable to break out of conventional family roles. The current disparity be-
tween highly trained female designers and women who actually pursue serious ca-
reers in design has existed from the very beginning.11 As early as the 1920s, Michael
Spondé wrote: ‘Anyone who wanders through the classes of our art academies is
surprised by the high percentage of women among the students. This proportion
stands in absolute contrast to the number of women that are found among practis-
ing designers.’12 Heinrich Jost estimated the proportion of female students in 1928
at roughly 50 percent,13 and commented in the same breath that ‘most of them mar-
ry, thank God’, thereby removing the great majority from the design workforce.14 As
late as 1960, there were only ten women among the 300 members of the Swiss
Graphic Design Association — a percentage that is typical for industrialised coun-
tries.15
Not until the turn of the millennium were attempts made to identify and elimi-
nate the causes for the relative lack of occupational success among women: discus-
sions about the reconciliation of work and family life have increased, both in the
political arena and in the statements and self-portrayals of female designers. These
and other current issues are addressed in the interviews beginning on page 255;
they are merely touched upon in the short biographies due to their complexity.
Similarly, the self-image of today’s female graphic designers cannot be broadly ex-
amined, but also finds expression in the interviews as well as the programmatic
texts beginning on page 305.
PROBLEM NO. 5 — ‘MALE GENIUS’ AND ‘FEMALE AESTHETICS’
Directly related to the problem described above is the impossible consideration of
profiling only women who have made a major contribution to the development of
design. For in addition to the mentioned social causes that have prevented many
women from investing as much time and energy in their design work as men, and 16 Hans Hildebrandt: Die Frau
als Künstlerin. 1928, p. 124.
that have discouraged them from publicising their work and thereby establishing a 17 Gebrauchsgraphik, Vol. 21,
reputation, comes the fact that contemporary criticism often disputes women’s ca- No. 11, 1952, p. 2.
18 Hildebrandt, 1928, op.cit.,
pacity for creative ‘genius’. p. 106.
19 For a detailed account, see
Conspicuously consistent in the evaluation of female design work is the empha- Anja Baumhoff: The Gendered
sis on women’s purportedly ‘feminine’ character, which produces ‘feminine’ works. World of the Bauhaus. Frankfurt
a. M. 2001.
In 1928, for example, Hans Hildebrandt expressed a widespread — and certainly not
the most conservative — opinion about designs that were formed by the hands of
women: in his book Die Frau als Künstlerin (Women as Artists), he described the work
of his wife as a delightful, ‘truly feminine combination of naivety and sophistica-
tion […]. Such designs harbour a heartfelt joy in the liberation from all aspects of
everyday logic, such as only a grown child can feel.’ 16 Similar statements are also
found in later trade journals from the 1950s: ‘The success of this couple’s collabora-
tion is based on the law of polarity […]. Hans Adolf Albitz is the structuralist, the
cool and calculating shaper of things […]. Ruth Albitz-Geiss prefers the painterly
elements, the passionate vitality of colour and the expressive gesture.’ 7
These comments are not intentionally disparaging, as the ‘feminine’ was appre-
ciated for its promotional value. In further remarks, Hildebrandt expressed his
pleasure about female emancipation, which makes the woman ‘less acquiescent’ to
the man, but also ‘more attractive’.18 However, such restrictive definitions of women
as ‘feminine’ limit them in a twofold manner: first, female designers are reduced to
a specific character trait and not treated as truly equal — also with regard to their
choice of styles — and second, the more positive evaluation of stylistically ‘femi-
nine’ works often influences women who strive for success to fulfil these expecta-
tions. This can explain why — especially in the 1950s, and especially when they col-
laborated with their husbands — women more frequently performed illustrative
tasks using delicate lines and soft colours, while their male partners produced de-
sign work that was rational and stringent. This distortion is reinforced through the
selection of works that have been reproduced, as well as the expectations to which
women were subjected. Especially in Germany during the 1950s, only a few women,
such as the example of sigrid lämmle (p. 497), contradicted this role model.
(The image of the Neue Frau, or new woman, had a stronger impact in the 1920s.)
Even a successful woman like grete troost (p. 574) was more likely to earn
praise from commentators for her hospitality than for her competence as a design-
er and businesswoman. The often unconscious or unquestioned notions of a ‘femi-
nine’ type of design and the efforts to correspond to them are also major reasons
why women at the Bauhaus, with few exceptions, were active in the weaving work-
shop, despite the professed modernity of the school.19
Several publications from the 1980s and early 1990s must, therefore, be viewed
from a critical perspective when they suggest that women are especially thorough
in their preparation of a project, that they are more involved in social causes, have
a more personal identification with their work and their clients, that they can bet-
ter understand and relate to their clients’ wishes and are not as strongly influenced
388
20 Cf. Liz McQuiston: Women
in Design – A Contemporary
View. London 1988; and Soupon
Design Group (Ed.): Inter-
national Women in Design.
New York 1993.
21 Gebrauchsgraphik, Vol. 5,
No. 5, 1928, pp. 50–56, here
p. 50.
22 Karl Schefler: Die Frau
und die Kunst. Berlin 1908,
pp. 29–40.
23 Wiener Spielkartenfabrik
Ferdinand Piatnik & Söhne
(Ed.): Jugendstil-Tarock – An-
merkungen. Vienna 1972, n. pag.
24 See the detailed study by
Christina Kiaer: The Short Life
of the Equal Woman. In: Tate
Etc., No. 15, Spring 2009.
25 The letter was written in
1914; however, it is unclear
whether it was ever actually
sent. The original document
is in the holdings of the
Khardzhiev-Chaga Cultural
Foundation, Amsterdam,
Box 78.
389
by their own egos.20 Such well-meaning attempts to generate greater appreciation
for ‘female’ traits and to portray women as the ‘true designers’ only tend to rein-
force a one-dimensional role model. Also, the emphasis on women’s ‘commitment
to service’ is problematic: although it does not explicitly deny their capacity for
‘creative genius’, it also does not affirm it. Comments like these, which supposedly
contribute to female emancipation, are astonishingly similar to remarks made by
Michael Spondé in the early 1920s in reference to graphic designs by lotte pot-
tel (p. 440), which ‘clearly [point to] a woman, because they evoke a strong sense
of empathy and intimately shared experience, but less energetic boldness’.21 The
view that a woman is unable to produce creative work is found with great consis-
tency in commentaries from the 1920s and 1950s, and as illustrated above, this con-
tinues to have an effect even today. However, it was seldom articulated as blatantly
as in a statement by Karl Scheffler from the year 1908: ‘Women are completely inca-
pable of possessing the power of imagination, neither in the creation nor in the
appreciation of art, because they lack the driving force behind it: a fanatical will for
advancement.’22
These or similar views promoted the tendency to attribute the creative output of
a number of women to their designer-husbands, as was the case with ditha mo-
ser (p. 519), the wife of Koloman Moser. Noting the superior quality of her tarot
and playing cards, one author commented: ‘One must come to the conclusion that
Kolo Moser was directly involved in the design.’23
The extent to which design and female designers are influenced by the prevailing
image of women is seen, for example, in the changes that took place in Russia dur-
ing the 1910s and 20s. During this era, an unusual number of female artists dis-
played a combative, ‘unfeminine’ public demeanour.24 The influence of Construc-
tivism on this trend was linked to the rejection of the ideal of artistic ‘genius’ (which
was generally regarded as masculine), as well as the battle against traditional aes-
thetic hierarchies, which had valued the fine arts as being superior to the applied
arts. Since women were typically associated with the latter, their work became more
highly esteemed during this time. natalia goncharova (p. 453), for example,
demonstrated a confident self-image in a letter to Filippo Marinetti, when she wrote
that women are ‘good mothers, good lovers, good working comrades, and there is
no reason to disdain them. In Russia, the word chelovek is a designation for human
beings of both sexes, and this affects all of our human relationships and our na-
tional identity.’25
PROBLEM NO. 6
— H I S T O R I O G R A P H Y: R E C O R D I N G , R E M O V I N G , R E V I S I N G
The fact that women designers have been less productive than their male colleagues,
and that only a small portion of their work has been valued as ‘innovative’, would
explain why they have not entered the annals of design history to the same extent.
At the outset of our research project, as previously mentioned, we also suspected 26 The trade journal ‘Die
Reklame’ described the work
that up until just a few decades ago (i. e. prior to the growing emancipation of wom- of Dore Mönkemeyer-Corty in
en on the career front), there were simply very few women who had been active in 1930 with the following words:
‘Nowhere does one ind
the design field, and that there would consequently be few women to write about. similarities; nowhere are
there repetitions. The Corty
However, our biographical research revealed a surprising insight: from 1890 on- monogram always brings
wards a continuously large group of women was active in the field of graphic de- new ideas and incarnations
to the fore.’ She is revered
sign. Many were better known during their lifetimes than they are today, and a con- as ‘someone who points out
new goals and [who is] an
siderable number were recognised among their peers as well as experts in the field. inspiration to all advertising
In light of this, it is astonishing that almost none of them are mentioned in the experts who value true ability
and originality more than
standard works on design history (see the essay by gerda breuer in this impersonation and imitation.’
Evidently, her contemporaries
volume on p. 86 ff.). recognised her innovative
The high degree of recognition and popularity that dore mönkemeyer cor- capacity and even remarked
on her ‘daring verve’ — a
ty (p. 516) enjoyed among her contemporaries,26 for example, is not reflected in trait that typically has male
connotations. Walter Schubert:
design historiography. In her case, this is partly attributable to the preferential Dore Mönkemeyer-Corty. In:
treatment of Modernism in design criticism: stylistic movements like Art Deco Die Reklame, Vol. 23, No. 5,
1930, pp. 132–139, here p. 132,
were much less frequently the topic of scholarly study than the ‘New Typography’, 139.
27 Evidence that this form of
for example, which was influenced by Constructivism and Neoplasticism. Conse- discrimination is still a relevant
quently, styles that were embraced by a relatively large number of female graphic issue is seen, for example, in
Katja Schneider’s study on Burg
designers fall between the cracks of the historical narrative.27 Here, at the latest, a Giebichenstein: she criticises
the work of Lotte Pottel for
‘double’ if not ‘triple discrimination’ comes into play. falling short of the rigorous and
Yet the ‘modernist’ design work of irmgard sörensen-popitz (p. 556) was dynamic compositions that
were typical of Moholy-Nagy,
also only recently ‘inserted’ into the annals of design history by Patrick Rössler (cf. Tschichold and Hans Finsler,
and says that her brochure has
essay on p. 120 ff.). The ‘insertion’ of female designers in the historical record is a ‘clearly individual character’.
necessary because it is also important to assess their work in the context of ‘other’, Cf. Angela Dolgner / Katja
Schneider: Burg Giebichenstein
non-gender-specific history, rather than just examining it for its special qualities.28 – Die hallesche Kunstschule von
den Anfängen bis zur Gegen-
In the case of Irmgard Sörensen-Popitz, this was facilitated by the fact that she left wart. Halle 1993.
an estate — often the estates of female artists either do not exist or cannot be lo- 28 An example of the latter is
observed in Jude Burkhauser’s
cated. Consequently, questions frequently remain unanswered — for example, why publication on the Glasgow
Girls. In the work of the Mac-
a woman like mar ga garnich (p. 449), who placed a four-page supplement in donald sisters, for example,
the widely distributed trade journal Die Reklame, finds no mention whatsoever in the she not only points out the
undeniable stylistic afinities
current literature (Hohlwein himself ran only single-page ads in this journal, which with works by Charles Rennie
Mackintosh and Herbert
was the official mouthpiece of the German Advertising Association). And this is McNair, but also the differences
despite the fact that she practised a decidedly ‘modern’ style, offered writing ser- in form, content and concept.
See Jude Burkhauser: Glasgow
vices in addition to graphic design — as an early precursor of advertising agencies Girls – Women in Art and Design
1880–1920. Edinburgh 1990.
— and could count ‘leading German brand-name companies’ among her clients.29 29 Die Reklame, Vol. 19, 1926,
More female designers who deserve to be discovered include the poster designer Supplement after p. 518.

ethel reed (p. 533), the Dutchwoman fre cohen (p. 423), as well as helen
dryden (p. 435), elisabeth friedlander (p. 448), aenne koken (p. 487)
and amy sacker (p. 540) — to name just a small selection of women from the
period prior to the Second World War whose work has not yet been featured in a
monographic study. The fact that this task is not an easy one is partly due to the
limited availability of source materials, since the practice of archival documenta-
tion is by no means gender-neutral.
390
30 Ursula A. Schneider /
Annette Steinsiek: Wer Er-
kenntnisse jagen will, muss
vorher gesammelt haben –
Überlieferung und Gender.
In: Geschlechterforschung.
Identitäten, Diskurse, Trans-
formationen. Forschungs-
ergebnisse und -vorhaben
des interdisziplinären
Gender-Forschungsschwer-
punktes an der Universität
Innsbruck. Innsbruck 2007,
pp. 43–48, here p. 44.
31 Many women signed their
work with ‘male’ names;
Henriette Reiss, for example,
used the signature ‘Henri’
(p. 533). Other women only
used monograms (e.g.,
p. 426 – Rie Cramer; p. 397 –
Margaret Armstrong), and
Beatrice Warde worked
under the male pseudonym
Paul Beaujon (p. 580).
32 Schneider, 2007, op.cit.,
p. 44 f.
391
P R O B L E M N O . 7 — S O U R C E M AT E R I A L S
The assumption that fewer estates of women exist because there were fewer female
designers proved premature, for the maintenance of an archive is also linked to
judgements about what is ‘important’. In addition, it can be presumed that women
have been less encouraged to regard their lives and work as worthy of historical at-
tention. As outlined above, the ‘social conditions before death have an influence on
the preservation of materials, and after death they determine how these materials
are evaluated.’ 30 Accordingly, the status of source materials makes a gender-neutral
assessment difficult, or it requires precursory efforts to put the subject into focus,
to justify it and to provide evidence of its significance, thereby consuming much
more energy than research in established fields. Additional problems crop up, such
as missing or misleading signatures,31 or group photos in which lesser known wom-
en are not identified by name; such gaps can seldom be filled later on. Consequently,
‘the spurious argument that “women were unknown” must be contradicted by
searching for, gathering and studying information and making it accessible. […] If
no one asks: “What are the origins of this statement about this object?”’ then the
traditional version of history is simply repeated.32 The collection of materials in this
book cannot provide more than a foundation for further study; it draws a number
of forgotten women to the surface, but also remains on the surface due to the limi-
tations of research based on published sources. It was not the aim of this collection
of biographies to produce studies of individual designers — several of the authors
in this volume have taken on that task — but to provide an overview of the biogra-
phies of well-known women, i.e., those who either established a reputation during
their lifetimes or garnered attention later on. The short biographies reproduce the
‘visibility’ of these women — as an indication of their success — without denying
the problematic aspects of ‘visibility’ that are discussed in Veronique Vienne’s essay
on ‘Designers and Visibility’ (see p. 333 ff.)
We have attempted to take the first step — to make a new reading of the existing
sources and to question them — but further steps must follow. It became clear as
we researched the short biographies that this would not be easy, since the problems
were exacerbated by contemporary practices of documenting design that were un-
related to gender. In catalogues, for example, the designers were often named, but
without images of their respective works or even exhibition photographs. In trade
journals that were illustrated with the works of a designer, one seldom finds bio-
graphical information. Articles usually placed a focus on a certain design theme,
such as ‘store signage’ or ‘advertisements for tobacco products’ rather than on the
designers who were active in this sector. The biographical information that is miss-
ing because of this is indispensible for further research, since it facilitates the next
step of discovering additional sources and artefacts in municipal and institutional
archives.
PROBLEM NO. 8 — UNIFORMITY

It becomes clear from the elucidation of problems 1 to 7 that there is a basic lack of
uniformity and consistency in the source materials, which presents many difficul-
ties. This carries over into the short biographies, as they are inconsistent with re-
spect to both length and content. They are strongly influenced by what appeared in
publications about the profiled women over the course of time. Taken as a whole,
they reflect the ongoing changes in critical reception and in the self-perception and
self-portrayal of female designers. They also shed light on the topical discussions
within this occupational field during various periods, including the desire for ar-
tistic self-fulfilment that is often expressed and practised today, as well as the cur-
rent emphasis on the advantages of flexible networks for implementing commis-
sions. Furthermore, cultural differences in the transmission of information — such
as the anecdotal approach to biographical narrative that is common in the USA —
could not be completely eliminated, but were moderated.

The bibliographic citations generally represent a selection of sources.

392