In 1892, after an abortion, Claudel ended the intimate aspect of her relationship with Rodin, although they saw each other regularly until 1898.

Le Cornec and Pollock state that after the sculptors' physical relationship ended, she was not able to get the funding to realise many of her daring ideas – because of sex-based censorship and the sexual element of her work. Claudel thus had either to depend on Rodin or to collaborate with him and see him get the credit as the lionised figure of French sculpture. She also depended on him financially ...

And that does not even take into account the drama of the rest of her life because I don't know to what extent Rodin was involved in it (positively or negatively).

She also made better sculptures imho.

PS: imo "zaddy" translates to stylish, privileged machism in this case

[–] lousyd@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 4 days ago (1 children)

What did Rodin do wrong? End the relationship?

[–] phdepressed@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Mostly the credit taking I'd gather.

[–] lousyd@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 3 days ago (2 children)

That passage didn't say he took credit, but rather that society (1890s France) refused to give credit to her because of her gender. It feels like OP knows more about this than I do, so I figured there was more to the story than what the Wikipedia page says.

[–] A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 1 points 3 days ago

there was more to the story than what the Wikipedia page says

There is! But I'm not an art historian so I don't feel confident laying it out for you. You can blame me for talking out my arse (but don't we all on social media) - but there is much more to the story.

[–] lousyd@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Sorry. Not OP. I'm the OP. "The person I'm responding to", I should have said. 🙂

[–] A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 1 points 3 days ago

You can edit a comment!

[–] merde@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 days ago

If you study art history just a little bit, you will "see" that artists are mostly troubled spirits.

Today we're expecting artists to be role models, while a great majority seems to be comfortable with presidents being sociopathic conman pussy grabbers (), genocidal maniacs (Natenyahu) or whatever Putin is.

Artists were often nourished by transgression. Most of them were (are) surviving as marginals and when they were (are) lucky to leave behind some of their works (instead of being forgotten completely) it's not so that their lives can be judged by moral codes of whatever era some narrow mind can find their selves in.

You're lucky, if you find yourself in front of a Rodin sculpture to admire the work.

[–] stinky@redlemmy.com -2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

meh, cishet

[–] lousyd@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 3 days ago

Well, if he ever strayed... he could get some.