can i say that the most important thing to me about her is that she was a female painterr of her time which was few and fart between oops far between.....it annoys me though that she was rich and this was the way she got to paint... the only way you could paint back then was if you were a nun.a painters wife or had a rich father,or if your father was a painter...tanother reason why there is not alot of personel info on her is because men have written history because women were not educated at the time or considered for contributing to it... a man would not have documented her life because he would not have givin a sh!t .interesting fact..
In 1911, she was diagnosed with diabetes, rheumatism, neuralgia and cataracts. Her illnesses did not slow her down, but after 1914, she stopped painting because of failing eyesight. Nonetheless, she took up the cause of women's suffrage, and in 1915, she showed 18 works in an exhibition supporting that movement.
She died at Chateau de Beaufresne, near Paris, and was buried in the family vault at Mesnil-ThÃ©ribus, France.
Recent sales of her paintings have been for as much as US $2.8 million.
female american impressionist painter,similar to degas,grew up in france,studied in philadelphia,wasnt reconised by us as a serious painter because of the feminist revolution at the time which came about because women were opressed in society,she was from a wealthy backround,i would imagine very ladylike...dont think any of her paintings would be in a movie.... my personal opinion... intereting for the womens movement,and paints motherly sweet paintings-kinda like a postcard you would see on a mantle piece.....