The large, grey walls of Murray Edwards College have displayed works of art by a number of women artists since 1986, and the collection now stands at over 400 pieces of art. In light of the Women of the World Festival happening this week, a recent tour of the collection asked, ‘Why Women Artists?’ It is a well-known fact that artists who identify as women are under-represented in the art world. In 2015, statistics reveal the continual disparity between male and female artists: at auction, the highest price paid to date for a work by a living woman artist is $7.1 million, a Yayoi Kusama painting. In comparison, the highest price paid for a work of art by a living man is $58.4 million, a Jeff Koons sculpture. In a world where capital is key to circulation, these figures matter. And the statistics frankly express the need for an advance on the endorsement and recognition of art created by women artists in the art world.

Walking through the extensive Murray Edwards collection, we experience an accumulation of work accomplished through a variety of media and subjects, all created by women artists. We view art from Judy Chicago, a leading member of the 1970s artist movement, whose art communicates the sense of pride and difference in the female body, and Mary Kelly, who responds more conceptually to accepted female stereotypes by using conventions such as fashion and romantic fiction to respond to J. M. Charcot’s ideas of female hysteria. The result of these works is a powerful amalgamation of a variety of ideas, all connected by their relevance to the subject of the woman. We see art from the resident artist at the college, Rachael House. There is a bright, bold piñata hanging from the ceiling, and it says: ‘HETERONORMATIVITY’. The concept behind this piece is to eventually take collective action against the piñata, to challenge heteronormativity. House’s further work continues in a similar strain: her banners, zines, pendants and badges not only express the challenges faced towards notions of gender, but they also act as an active response to them.

So, ‘Why Women Artists?’ The tour itself did not state an answer, but experiencing the art was enough. Created by women artists who offered their work as gifts and loans, the collection is therefore particularly exceptional. This collective act of giving is perhaps rooted in the understanding that there is a lack of representation of women in the art world. Statistically, many try to map the improvements made (for example, in 2000, the Guggenheim Museum had no solo shows by women, compared with 14 per cent being by women in 2014). However, there is still an enormous disparity. The collection showcases the historical corpus of women artists, and it is one of difference and variation – in medium, or of concepts. By encouraging this active looking back to past interpretations of what it is to be a woman artist, the collection allows us to consolidate what it is to be a woman artist today. By learning from ideas of the past, we can situate ourselves within the here and now, developing knowledge, moving towards a future, all the while aware of the pervading importance and influence of past women artists who have been under-represented, who have been silenced, but who have also contributed to the voices of women artists today.

And this, therefore, renders the question, ‘Why Women Artists?’ obsolete.